Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

12,259 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,650 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Fittipaldi USA, Inc. v. Helio Castroneves
  905 So. 2d 182· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-03-30 ·cited 30×
  Fittipaldi USA, Inc. appeals a jury verdict in a breach of contract dispute with race car driver Helio Castroneves. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that while the trial court erred in allowing attorney Alan Miller's undisclosed expert testimony regarding contract quality
• Kulling v. State
  827 So. 2d 311· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-09-06 ·cited 30×
  Jody Kulling was convicted of lewd or lascivious exhibition in the presence of a child under sixteen. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed and remanded because the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of similar crimes against adult w
• Island Hoppers, Ltd. v. Norma Beard Keith for the Estate of Marsha K. Beard
  820 So. 2d 967· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-05-29 ·cited 30×
  Island Hoppers appeals a trial court's award of attorneys' fees to the estate of a diver who died during an Island Hoppers dive charter. The Fourth District affirms the fee award, including a contingency risk multiplier of 2.3, and addresses whether trial courts may apply conting
• Lloyd's Underwriter's AT London v. Ruby, Inc.
  801 So. 2d 138· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-11-21 ·cited 30×
  Lloyd's Underwriter's at London appeals a trial court's denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment. The court reversed, holding that Lloyd's established excusable neglect through a series of clerical errors and miscommunications involving its New York law firm and Londo
• Beauvais v. Edell
  760 So. 2d 262· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-07 ·cited 30×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reconsidered its prior precedent holding that jury verdicts awarding only medical expenses constitute inadequate verdicts as a matter of law. The court receded from Daigneault and Mason, holding that where the causation of injuries is disputed,
• Wagner v. State
  707 So. 2d 827· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-02-26 ·cited 30×
  Arthur Wagner III appeals his convictions for two counts of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and one count of sale of cocaine. The appellate court affirms all convictions and sentences, upholding the admission of videotape evidence and rejecting claims of evidentiary
• Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz
  586 So. 2d 460· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred in calculating the husband's special equity in the marital residence and in awarding permanent alimony, requiring remand for recalculation. Other issues were affirmed.
• United States v. Pryce
  938 F.2d 1343· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 30×·via Abuse Of Discretion In Limiting Cross-Examination
  The court should not consider the harmless error doctrine when the government fails to argue it, as this would violate the adversary system and judicial neutrality.
• United States v. Prescott
  920 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court's refusal to depart downwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines is not appealable unless based on a mistaken belief of no discretion, and that the procedures used in determining the base offense level did not violate due process.
• United States v. Grover Cleveland Barnes
  909 F.2d 1059· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 30×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, the seized revolver was admissible, the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and the notebook was properly admitted
• United States v. Khoury
  901 F.2d 975· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in amending the sentencing transcript and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to irreconcilable conflicts in the oral pronouncement.
• United States v. Snover
  900 F.2d 1207· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines based on aggravating factors, and the imposed sentences were reasonable.
• Am. Bankers Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. First State Ins. Co.
  891 F.2d 882· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 30×
  The district court abused its discretion by dismissing the federal action in favor of a parallel state court proceeding, as no exceptional circumstances justified surrendering federal jurisdiction.
• United States v. Montilla
  870 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-20 ·cited 30×
  A guilty plea waives a due process claim of outrageous government conduct if establishing the claim requires further proceedings beyond the face of the indictment or record at the time of the plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion by deferring a ruling on the motio
• Gutzwiller v. Fenik
  860 F.2d 1317· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of sex discrimination and substantive due process violations against the defendants, and that judicial intervention in academic tenure decisions is generally inappropriate.
• Doering v. Union Cnty. Bd. OF Chosen Freeholders
  857 F.2d 191· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the finding of a Rule 11 violation and the lodestar calculation for attorney's fees but vacated the monetary sanction amount, remanding for consideration of mitigating factors.
• United States v. Olson
  846 F.2d 1103· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-09 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and that the denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was proper.
• Halaco Eng'g Co. v. Costle
  843 F.2d 376· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the EPA's counterclaim based on its inherent powers, as the EPA's misconduct did not warrant such a severe sanction.
• United States v. Baus
  834 F.2d 1114· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the guarantors' Rule 60(b)(6) motion as untimely, finding their delay was justified by the government's conduct and assurances.
• United States v. Causey
  834 F.2d 1277· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the government's violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.1 regarding notice of an alibi rebuttal witness constituted plain error, requiring a new trial.
• Becerra-Jimenez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  829 F.2d 996· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of voluntary departure was not an abuse of discretion, but remanded the case to the BIA for consideration of newly discovered evidence under 28 U.S.C. § 2347(c).
• HAL Commodity Cycles Mgmt. Co. v. Riva Kirsh
  825 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment, as the defendant's default was willful and less drastic sanctions were not an absolute prerequisite.
• R.K. Harp Inv. Corp. v. McQUADE
  825 F.2d 1101· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions, finding the defendants' motion to set aside default judgments had a sufficient factual basis and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
• Hamer v. Cnty. OF Lake
  819 F.2d 1362· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that attorney's fees could be awarded against the plaintiffs because their claims were largely frivolous, but fees could not be awarded against their attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Allied Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  814 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an amendment substituting a new plaintiff relates back to the original filing date under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) if the claim arises from the same conduct, there is an identity of interest, and no prejudice results, and that a local union participating in an illega
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR THE Advancement OF Colored People v. The City OF Evergreen
  812 F.2d 1332· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide sufficient clarity and record support for its reduction of attorney's fees and costs, requiring vacation and remand for reconsideration.
• Kleinhans v. Lisle Sav. Profit Sharing Tr.
  810 F.2d 618· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a request for benefit distribution does not constitute a request for information triggering the ERISA § 502(c) penalty, and punitive damages are not recoverable under ERISA § 1132(a)(3).
• In re Union Carbide Corp. GAS Plant Disaster AT Bhopal v. Union Carbide Corp.
  809 F.2d 195· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the actions on forum non conveniens grounds, finding India an adequate alternative forum, but modified two of the conditions imposed on the dismissal.
• Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  498 So. 2d 488· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-11-04 ·cited 30×
  The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence from a ship's medical log.
• DMI, Inc. v. Deere & Co.
  802 F.2d 421· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of DMI's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the patent claims were obvious. The court also affirmed the denial of DMI's motion for a new trial, finding n
• United States v. Washita Constr. Co.
  789 F.2d 809· 10th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that collusive bidding practices, which deprived taxpayers of the monetary advantage of competitive bidding and governments of honest contract awards, constitute a "scheme or artifice to defraud" under the mail fraud statute. The court also held that the trial cour
• Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc. v. United States
  787 F.2d 1186· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the federal tax lien was validly filed in Illinois and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating a default judgment against the government.
• Davis v. State
  489 So. 2d 754· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-02-27 ·cited 30×
  Davis appeals her 40-year sentence for second-degree murder, which exceeded the guideline range of 12-17 years by 23 years. The court affirmed, finding three of four stated reasons for departure valid under sentencing guidelines, and determining that even absent the invalid reaso
• Cohen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  782 F.2d 923· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to obtain local counsel was an abuse of discretion when lesser sanctions were not considered and there was no clear record of delay or willful contempt.
• Shahriar Kaveh-Haghigy and Sasan Kaveh-Haghigy v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  783 F.2d 1321· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to present a prima facie case for asylum or withholding of deportation, and thus the denial of their motions to reopen was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Erick Mitchell
  778 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 30×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that transporting a woman across state lines for the purpose of rape constitutes an "immoral purpose" under the Mann Act, and that successive federal prosecution after a state acquittal does not violate double jeopardy.
• del Valle v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  776 F.2d 1407· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the BIA's denial of withholding of deportation was not supported by substantial evidence and that the petitioner was eligible for asylum.
• Jock Everett Riggins v. State
  477 So. 2d 663· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-10-31 ·cited 30×
  Riggins was placed on probation for burglary, then his probation was revoked for forging a federal Treasury check. The trial court sentenced him three cells above the guideline range. Riggins argued the court could depart only one cell upward under the amended sentencing rule, bu
• Williams v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  773 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 30×
  The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
• Pena v. Seguros la Comercial, S.A.
  770 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to provide a correct address to the state insurance department, leading to a default judgment, constitutes culpable conduct that prevents vacating the judgment under Rule 60(b).
• In re Baldwin-United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litigation) Alaska
  770 F.2d 328· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 30×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Preliminary Injunctions
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction under the All-Writs Act to prevent state actions that threatened to impair its jurisdiction over a complex, advanced securities class action and its settlement proceedings.
• Vanguards OF Cleveland v. City OF Cleveland
  753 F.2d 479· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-23 ·cited 30×
  The dissent argues that a consent decree, like a court-ordered remedy, must be limited by Title VII's § 706(g) and cannot provide relief beyond what could be ordered after trial.
• Briley v. Bass
  750 F.2d 1238· 4th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, adequately informed the jury of its discretion to recommend life imprisonment and consider mitigating circumstances, and that the exclusion of prospective jurors with death penalty scruples was not an abuse
• Zamora-Garcia v. United States Dep't of Just. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  737 F.2d 488· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by failing to consider all relevant non-economic hardship factors when determining Ramona Zamora-Garcia's eligibility for suspension of deportation, requiring remand for reconsideration.
• Tech. Publ'g Co. v. Lebhar-Friedman, Inc.
  729 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because 'Software News' is likely a generic term, unprotectable as a trademark, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• United States v. Farnsworth
  729 F.2d 1158· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting lay opinion identification testimony from parole officers was not an abuse of discretion, nor did it violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, provided the district court carefully limited the scope of examination to avoid revea
• Wiedemann v. Galiano
  722 F.2d 335· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court may not consider juror testimony regarding the effect of extraneous influences on deliberations when ruling on a motion for a new trial, as such testimony is barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
• In re The Tax Liab. of Willis H. Newton v. Pennington
  718 F.2d 1015· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 30×
  Tax accrual workpapers prepared by an independent auditor are subject to IRS summons without a special showing of need, and federal law does not recognize an accountant work product privilege that would limit this authority.
• United States v. State OF Or. & State of Wash.
  718 F.2d 299· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 30×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Injunctions
  The court held that the appeal was not moot and affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, finding it struck an appropriate balance between treaty fishing rights and conservation needs.
• Duran v. Elrod
  713 F.2d 292· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the county's motion to modify the consent decree to allow double-bunking and in ordering the release of low-bond pretrial detainees to comply with the population cap.