Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

12,338 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,659 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Kessee
  992 F.2d 1001· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-11
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to an entrapment jury instruction because he presented some evidence on both elements of the defense, creating a genuine issue of fact for the jury to decide.
• Klein v. Hollings
  992 F.2d 1285· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-11
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, vacating the order and reinstating the first jury's verdict.
• Castaneda-Suarez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  993 F.2d 142· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-11
  The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision but stayed the deportation order pending the Board's review of the alien's motion to reopen.
• The Est. OF Jose M. Solis-Rivera v. United States
  993 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-11
  The court vacated the dismissal and remanded to the district court to decide whether to allow the case to proceed, considering the statute of limitations issue.
• French v. Lt. Dedrick A. Beard
  993 F.2d 160· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-11
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on the verdict being against the weight of the evidence.
• Losacco v. F.D. Rich Constr. Co., Inc.
  992 F.2d 382· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-10 ·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions on 'just cause' or in its evidentiary rulings, and affirmed the judgment.
• United States v. McKENZIE
  991 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-10
  The court held that the district court adequately explained its reasons for departing upward from the sentencing guidelines, and thus did not abuse its discretion.
• United States v. G.T.W.
  992 F.2d 198· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-04
  The court affirmed the transfer of T.L.F. for adult prosecution but dissented regarding the transfer of G.T.W., finding it an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Washington
  992 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-03
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial based on surplusage in the indictment, and that the prosecutor's demonstration during closing argument did not constitute plain error.
• Peart v. City OF NEW York
  992 F.2d 458· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-03
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice and imposing monetary sanctions on counsel due to the attorney's failure to comply with court orders and prosecute the action.
• Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Tr.
  994 F.2d 716· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-03
  The court held that arguments not properly preserved in the trial court are not preserved for appeal, even if the trial court discussed them 'in the interest of a complete record.' The court also held that statutory pre-judgment interest is available even when the defendant is an
• Thompson v. Edward D. Jones & Co.
  992 F.2d 187· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-03
  The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction, holding that a class member who received notice of a settlement and did not opt out is bound by the final judgment, which barred all claims related to specific investments.
• CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc.
  989 F.2d 791· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-29
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions because ArtCarved's legal position regarding the proper forum for sanctions was plausible, even if ultimately incorrect.
• Landmark Land Co., Inc. v. Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  990 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-29
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the four criteria for preliminary injunctions and by not issuing its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Francis v. Clark Equip. Co.
  993 F.2d 545· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-29
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed on behalf of "Plaintiffs" was sufficient to designate both plaintiffs as appellants when only two plaintiffs existed and were named in the lawsuit.
• Raymundo R. Mendoza v. Lynaugh
  989 F.2d 191· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-28
  The court held that while the prisoner's claims were properly dismissed as frivolous, the Rule 11 sanctions imposed were overly severe and constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Swim Indus. Corp. v. Morris (In Re Morris)
  153 B.R. 588· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-27
  The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by lifting the automatic stay for the limited purpose of allowing a state court appeal to proceed, as the circumstances warranted an expedited hearing and the opposing party had notice and opportunity to be
• United States v. Devaney
  992 F.2d 75· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-26
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the federal sentence to run consecutively to the state sentence, as there was no indication the judge believed he lacked the authority to do otherwise.
• Lackey v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  990 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-26
  The court held that Jones Act claims are non-removable, and the district court improperly retained jurisdiction. The court also found that the plaintiffs' notice of appeal, after amendment, was sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction.
• United States v. King
  990 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-22
  The court held that a defendant's probation term commenced upon release from physical custody, not upon the expiration of parole, allowing for revocation of probation based on violations committed during the parole term.
• Toucet v. Mar. Overseas Corp.
  991 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-20
  The court held that the employer waived its argument regarding the inconsistency of the jury's verdict by failing to object before the jury was discharged, and that the hypothetical question and damage award were proper.
• First Officers Arthur N. Rogers and Michael J. Baker v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  988 F.2d 607· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-20 ·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the duty of fair representation claim, that the Greenbaum Award was inconsistent with the Morris Award, and that attorney's fees were not recoverable.
• In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litig. (Two Cases). TCI, Inc. v. Wirebound BOX Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc.
  993 F.2d 152· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-19
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the rejection of appellants' antitrust settlement claims as untimely filed or unsupported by necessary documentation.
• Church OF Scientology OF SAN Francisco v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  991 F.2d 560· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-16
  It was an abuse of discretion to deny FOIA plaintiffs discovery prior to summary judgment, given the disadvantages they face and the specific circumstances of the case.
• Mario Buatta Corp. v. Ford
  616 So. 2d 618· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-04-14 ·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
• Silman Custom Painting, Inc. v. AETNA Life & Cas. Co.
  990 F.2d 1063· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-13 ·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that Aetna, having paid the mortgagee after denying coverage, was not entitled to a credit against the insureds' judgment but was entitled to enforce the assigned notes and mortgages. The court also held that the admission of expert testimony from a fire chief, des
• DeWITT v. Kovalic
  991 F.2d 1243· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying bifurcation and upholding the jury's determination of reasonable attorney fees.
• Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  987 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motions to extend the time for appeal and to set aside the order, as the movant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or timely pursue available procedural remedies.
• Thanh Huu Nguyen v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  991 F.2d 621· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-09
  The court held that the petitioner's conviction for shooting with intent to kill and possession of a stolen vehicle did not arise from a single scheme of criminal misconduct, and affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of deportation.
• United States v. Lewis
  991 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-09 ·via Abuse Of Discretion In Denying Continuance
  The court held that prior felony convictions arising from separate criminal episodes on separate days can be counted individually for Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate his prior guilty pleas were constitutionally invalid due to in
• Sawyers v. Shalala
  990 F.2d 1033· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-07
  The court held that the Secretary's interpretation of the continuation-of-benefits statutes was substantially justified, even though incorrect, precluding attorney's fees under the EAJA.
• Dunn v. Gull
  990 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-07
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions under Rule 11, as the plaintiff's nondisclosure of a USPTO rejection was not intentional and did not render the summary judgment motion legally baseless.
• Coastal Fuels OF Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp.
  990 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-06
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Comiskey v. JFTJ Corp.
  989 F.2d 1007· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-06
  The court held that a default judgment was appropriate due to the defendant's willful discovery abuses, but the award of damages was reversed because the plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The attorney fees award was affirmed as a Rule 37 sanctio
• United States v. Edward Langford, M.D.
  990 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-05 ·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  A juror's intentional nondisclosure during voir dire does not automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial; the defendant must still show that a truthful answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause and that the nondisclosure affected impartiality.
• United States v. Palmer
  990 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-05
  The court held that the admission of Palmer's post-arraignment statement did not constitute plain error, and therefore the conviction should be affirmed.
• Durant v. Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. 16 of Leflore Cnty.
  990 F.2d 560· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-05 ·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that Ms. Durant's due process claim was extinguished by a prior ruling, but affirmed the jury's verdict on her First Amendment claim. The court remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees.
• LEE v. Jabe
  989 F.2d 869· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-02
  A certificate of probable cause is required to appeal a district court's denial of bail pending disposition of a habeas action, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying bail in this case.
• Steve Weis Realty, Inc. v. The Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank of Fla.
  618 So. 2d 274· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-04-02
  Florida appellate court affirmed denial of intervention by minority stockholder in foreclosure action where the stockholder waited until after default judgment was entered, despite having notice and opportunity to participate earlier through bankruptcy proceedings.
• United States v. Thompson
  990 F.2d 301· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court held that evidence of cash and jewelry was admissible and that the defendant was not entitled to a downward adjustment for his role in the offense.
• Murphy v. Ginorio
  989 F.2d 566· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court held that a district court abused its discretion by dismissing a plaintiff's action for failure to post a nonresident bond without adequately considering the plaintiff's ability to pay and the potential preclusive effect of the bond.
• Conservation LAW Found. OF NEW England, Inc. v. Franklin
  989 F.2d 54· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court held that the consent decree was validly entered because the appellants failed to show a demonstrable injury, the decree was within the scope of the original complaint and the court's jurisdiction, and the Secretary acted within her statutory discretion.
• United States v. Demetress Wesley
  990 F.2d 360· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or instructional rulings.
• Gilliam v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc.
  989 F.2d 278· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-25
  The court held that expert testimony regarding the theoretical possibility of future harm is admissible to show the reasonableness of a plaintiff's fear, and that a jury instruction on future mental anguish is permissible even without proof of an increased risk of disease, provid
• United States v. Ball
  988 F.2d 7· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-24
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the witness's wife as an interpreter, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Lewinson
  988 F.2d 1005· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-23
  The court held that a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 was warranted for significantly reduced mental capacity, even if partially related to drug use, and that the extent of the departure was reasonable.
• Hunnicutt v. Bennie B. Wright, Jr.
  986 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-23
  A surgeon is not vicariously liable for the negligence of hospital personnel performing purely administrative or ministerial tasks, and a jury instruction suggesting otherwise warrants reversal.
• Clark v. United States Postal Serv.
  989 F.2d 1164· Fed. Cir.· 1993-03-22
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to waive the deadline for filing an appeal, even though the employee argued the agency failed to notify him of his appeal rights.
• United States v. Steele
  988 F.2d 998· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-22
  The court held that resentencing a defendant to a less favorable parole eligibility provision without justification unconstitutionally increases the sentence.
• United States v. Marx
  991 F.2d 1369· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-18 ·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for the charges and no errors in jury instructions, evidence rulings, sentencing enhancements, or responses to jury questions.