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

• Crawford v. Latha Shivashankar & Allstate Ins. Co.
  474 So. 2d 873· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-08-22 ·cited 28×
  Crawford appealed a jury verdict against her in a negligence action arising from a minor automobile accident, challenging the trial court's exclusion of thermographic evidence to support her claim of permanent injury. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial c
• Young v. The United States Dep't of Just.
  759 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Board's failure to consider all relevant evidence, including letters supporting the asylum claim, constituted reversible error.
• Brocklesby v. United States
  767 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an indemnity agreement was admissible to show the relationship between parties and impeach witnesses, and that a chart manufacturer could be held strictly liable for defects in its product even if the defect originated from a government-supplied procedure.
• Rose v. State
  461 So. 2d 84· Fla.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve for appeal a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence, and that the trial court did not err in its sentencing instructions or findings regarding aggravating circumstances.
• Nat'l Ctr. FOR Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  743 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the regulation was likely invalid because it lacked individualized determinations and was not sufficiently related to the Immigration and Nationality Act's purposes, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• August S. Carstens v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & United States
  742 F.2d 1546· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acted within its broad statutory authority in granting operating licenses for SONGS Units 2 and 3, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.
• Shefton Gordon v. United States Steel Corp.
  724 F.2d 106· 10th Cir.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying attorney's fees without stating its reasons, requiring a remand for clarification.
• Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc.
  722 F.2d 1319· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the default judgment for liquidated damages was proper, but the judgment for fraud damages must be remanded for a hearing due to insufficient proof and the unresolved status of jointly and severally liable defendants.
• Burton M. Abrams and Marguerite M. Abrams v. Interco Inc.
  719 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-28 ·cited 28×
  A judgment on the merits in favor of a plaintiff is final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 even if statutory attorneys' fees remain undetermined. Denial of class certification is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but this standard is flexible and allows for reversal if the d
• State v. Prieto
  439 So. 2d 288· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-09-27 ·cited 28×
  The trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because none of the three alleged errors—the denial of a continuance, comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence when no Fifth Amendment right was invoked, and the judge's ex parte communication to the jury withou
• Cannon v. Univ. OF Health Sciences/THE Chicago Med. Sch.
  710 F.2d 351· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Title IX does not provide a damages remedy and the Eleventh Amendment bars damage claims against state universities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Laches may apply to equitable claims under § 1983 when legal remedies are barred.
• Valm v. Hercules Fish Prods., Inc.
  701 F.2d 235· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the denial of a new trial motion was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff deliberately failed to move for a directed verdict on the seaworthiness issue, and the jury's verdict was not a manifest miscarriage of justice.
• Lewis v. Al Knutson
  699 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a hostile tender offeror owes no fiduciary duty to a target company or its shareholders, and a shareholder who loses their status during litigation lacks standing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend or reconsider.
• Fiore v. United States
  696 F.2d 205· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a sentencing judge did not abuse discretion by requiring a defendant to pay his corporation's fine as a condition of probation.
• United States v. Yitchak Ijo Perlmuter
  693 F.2d 1290· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 28×
• Cel-A-Pak v. Cal. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO
  680 F.2d 664· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was untimely for the underlying judgment, but timely for the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, which is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
• United States v. Patterson
  678 F.2d 774· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the grand jury testimony was admissible as past recorded recollection and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for receiving stolen property, but reversed the conspiracy conviction due to the acquittal of all named co-conspirators and insuffi
• United States v. Barbosa
  666 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the denial of the severance motion was not an abuse of discretion and that prosecutorial misconduct claims were unfounded.
• Quinn v. Burlington N. Inc. Pension Plan
  664 F.2d 675· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 28×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Burlington Northern Pension Plan Administrator could offset pension benefits even after the employee elected to receive a salary in lieu of pension benefits from another plan, as the employee remained entitled to vested pension benefits.
• Hoffert v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  656 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 28×
  The district court had jurisdiction to limit the amount of attorney's fees from a settlement, and its reduction of the fee was within its discretionary power.
• Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co.
  651 F.2d 671· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 8(e).
• Conchita Palmar v. Emilio Palmar
  402 So. 2d 20· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-06-30 ·cited 28×
  In this dissolution of marriage case, the wife and husband cross-appealed a final judgment, each challenging various awards. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the awards for child support, attorney's fees, an
• Roadway Express, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  647 F.2d 415· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board improperly refused to defer to a voluntary settlement between an employer and an employee, as the settlement met the Board's established criteria for deferral.
• O'Neil v. City OF Lake Oswego
  642 F.2d 367· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Attorney'S Fees
  A judge acting in excess of jurisdiction, but not in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, is protected by judicial immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Attorney's fees awards require specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Ram Chudshevid v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  641 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the deportation order due to untimeliness, but could review the denial of the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. The denial was affirmed because the alien failed to establish the required investment, even if other gr
• United States v. COX
  633 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that admitting mockup bombs into the jury room, even if not ideal, was not reversible error given the limiting instruction and opportunity for cross-examination. It also held that the prosecutor's closing argument and witness testimony, while potentially improper,
• Dominik v. Rolla E
  390 So. 2d 81· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-10-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees, but reversed a vague provision regarding the marital residence and a cohabitation clause for alimony termination.
• United States v. Kendricks
  623 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's extrajudicial statements, made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy, is permissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Tolbert v. Elliott Leighton
  623 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that dismissing a legal malpractice suit for failure to prosecute, based solely on the plaintiff's absence from a status conference, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Court OF Flags & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Outland
  382 So. 2d 443· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-04-18 ·cited 28×
  A lump-sum advancement under § 440.20(10), Fla. Stat., cannot be approved based on the claimant's desire to invest proceeds at a higher interest rate or to provide for his spouse's future, as these estate-planning and investment considerations do not constitute the claimant's own
• Mayview Corp. v. Rodstein
  620 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-04 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the invalidity of the utility and design patents and the dismissal of most counterclaims, but vacated and remanded the attorney's fees award for further consideration.
• United States v. Green
  600 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, even if not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and that other evidentiary and constitutional claims lacked merit.
• United States v. Back
  588 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-04 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge holds that the testimony regarding the rape was properly admitted as part of the sequence of events for the charged offense and was not offered to prove character.
• United States v. Eldred
  588 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge's participation, handling of publicity, jury sequestration, and denial of jury interviews or a new trial did not constitute reversible error, affirming the conviction.
• HO YIN Wong v. State
  359 So. 2d 460· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-02-28 ·cited 28×
  Ho Yin Wong appeals his conviction for possession and importation of cannabis, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding cross-examination of a key police officer witness and the admission of prior consistent statements. The appellate court affirms, finding no r
• United States v. Miller
  573 F.2d 388· 7th Cir.· 1978-01-20 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
• Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc.
  564 F.2d 1304· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification because the appellants failed to make an adequate factual showing of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, and discovery was unlikely to yield the necessary information.
• Honorable Ronald v. Dellums
  566 F.2d 231· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-04 ·cited 28×
• Essex Cnty. Pres. Ass'n v. Campbell
  536 F.2d 956· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while a supplemental EIS was required due to a gubernatorial moratorium, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the identified violations were technical and no irreparable harm was demonstrated.
• Lyons v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Charleston Reorganized Sch. Dist. NO. 1 OF Miss. Cnty.
  523 F.2d 340· 8th Cir.· 1975-09-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding racial discrimination in her non-renewal, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint with a new cause of acti
• Friends OF THE Earth v. Coleman
  513 F.2d 295· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the highway project was sufficient and that the highway and canal projects should be reviewed independently for NEPA purposes.
• United States v. Truglio
  493 F.2d 574· 4th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was not voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from joint representation and coercive plea negotiations, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
• United States v. Troutman
  458 F.2d 217· 10th Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the collective knowledge of the police and that the denial of the severance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Tupacyupanqui-Marin v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  447 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-24 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Smith
  433 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-14 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on recanted testimony or an alleged jury composition error.
• United States v. Foster
  417 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1969-10-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court's judgment on the bond forfeiture was vacated and remanded for further consideration because the appellate court lacked sufficient facts to determine if the denial of remission was arbitrary and capricious.
• Sylvia v. State
  210 So. 2d 286· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-05-07 ·cited 28×
  Two appellants convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit robbery appealed their convictions. The court affirmed both convictions on the merits but reversed Sylvia's judgment because it charged grand larceny rather than robbery as alleged in the informati
• Baker v. Dillon
  389 F.2d 57· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-05 ·cited 28×
• Consol. Masonry & Fireproofing, Inc. v. Wagman Constr. Corp.
  383 F.2d 249· 4th Cir.· 1967-08-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment, as the defendant failed to show good cause, act promptly, or present a meritorious defense with sufficient factual support.
• Grady L. West and Clifford C. Graham v. Gilbert
  361 F.2d 314· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-18 ·cited 28×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and in denying the motion to vacate the dismissal order.