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

• Philon v. Rohan R. Reid
  602 So. 2d 648· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-10 ·cited 26×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  Dorothy and Willie Philon appealed a trial court order granting defendant Rohan Reid a new trial on damages alone, claiming the jury verdict was 'clearly excessive.' The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial judge violated procedural requirements by failing to state sp
• United States v. Horst Werner Joetzki
  952 F.2d 1090· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions but vacated Gisner's sentence, remanding for resentencing because the district court failed to expressly order consecutive sentences as required by statute when the total punishment exceeded the statutory maximum for the individual counts.
• United States v. Short
  947 F.2d 1445· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were voluntary and admissible, and that the admission of his prior drug conviction, even if potentially improper, did not constitute reversible error.
• Welter v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  941 F.2d 674· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court's orders remanding cases to the Secretary for further proceedings were not final judgments, making the EAJA fee applications timely. The court also held that the Secretary's position denying benefits was substantially justified, thus denying
• Veranda Beach Club Ltd. P'ship v. W. Sur. Co.
  936 F.2d 1364· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that no reversible error occurred in the exclusion of claims, evidentiary rulings, or directed verdicts.
• United States v. Ovidio Camejo
  929 F.2d 610· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of prior good conduct offered to negate intent, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings were not grounds for reversal.
• Floyd v. Laws
  929 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a jury instruction on qualified immunity was not an abuse of discretion, and that a jury's answer to a verdict question, given in violation of explicit instructions, is surplusage and must be disregarded.
• United States v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.
  922 F.2d 704· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 26×
  Farm interests have a right to intervene in the lawsuit concerning Count I, which seeks to translate state narrative water quality standards into numeric criteria, because they have a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest in the administrative process for developi
• United States v. Ernie C. Doyan, Jr.
  909 F.2d 412· 10th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that imposing a fine sufficient to cover the costs of incarceration and supervision, even if burdensome to the defendant, does not constitute an abuse of discretion or violate equal protection principles under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Thompson
  906 F.2d 1292· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by police observations, provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest and search of the vehicle. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the guil
• United States v. Sawyers
  902 F.2d 1217· 6th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 26×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for manufacturing marijuana was proper, and none of the alleged errors warranted reversal.
• Dilcia Reyes De Valle v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  901 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social group, and thus the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying asylum and withholding of deportation.
• Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Standard Havens, Inc.
  901 F.2d 1373· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because affirmative defenses were not properly pleaded, and that the denial of a post-trial amendment and exclusion of parol evidence were also proper.
• United States v. Defazio
  899 F.2d 626· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying defense counsel, nor in excluding evidence regarding the defendant's state of mind or hypothetical tax returns, and that admitting attorney testimony was not reversible error.
• Deloach v. Delchamps, Inc.
  897 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the denial of a new trial on age discrimination but remanded the front pay award for recalculation, affirming the denial of general and liquidated damages and attorney's fees.
• Guglietti v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  900 F.2d 397· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 26×
  The claimant is a 'prevailing party' for purposes of attorney's fees, but the case must be remanded to reconsider whether the government's position was 'substantially justified'.
• Home Ins. Co. v. Thomas Indus., Inc.
  896 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for improper venue, as the plaintiff made a sufficient prima facie showing that venue was proper in the Northern District of Georgia based on fraud and veil-piercing claims.
• DeSISTO Coll., Inc. v. Line
  888 F.2d 755· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in imposing Rule 11 sanctions on counsel for failing to comply with court orders regarding pleading structure and for pursuing claims against defendants with clear legislative immunity under circuit precedent.
• United States v. Dalton Green
  887 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting firearms and coconspirator statements, nor was the evidence insufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Hudson
  884 F.2d 1016· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 26×
  Evidence of prior similar acts is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it meets a four-part test, and the trial court has discretion regarding jury instructions and expert testimony.
• Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh
  880 F.2d 1325· D.C. Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 26×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) mandates that judicial review of legalization determinations be conducted exclusively in the courts of appeals following exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• United States v. DeVARONA
  872 F.2d 114· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 26×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that the joinder of defendants and charges was proper, affirming the conviction.
• Migda Rodriguez-Antuna v. Chase Manhattan Bank Corp.
  871 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment was untimely under Rule 59(e), and even if considered under Rule 60(b), the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
• United States v. Turk
  870 F.2d 1304· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 26×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance and continuance, and that prosecutorial comments and a witness's statement did not prejudice the defendants or deny them a fair trial.
• United States v. Travles Russell Lane
  866 F.2d 103· 4th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding no prima facie case of discrimination based on the prosecutor's strike of one black juror, nor in accepting the prosecutor's neutral reason for striking a black alternate juror.
• Loudermill v. The DOW Chem. Co.
  863 F.2d 566· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the magistrate did not abuse discretion in admitting expert testimony, denying directed verdicts, or granting summary judgment on the indemnification claim, and that prejudgment interest was correctly denied.
• United States v. Angelica
  859 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) can be applied to continuing offenses that extend beyond its effective date, and that restitution can be ordered for victims of the entire scheme, not just those named in the indictment. However, t
• United States v. Bonallo
  858 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 26×
  A scheme to defraud a bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 does not require the misrepresentation to precede the transfer of money or property; the indictment was sufficient, and the evidence supported conviction on 11 of 12 counts.
• Electro Servs., Inc. v. Exide Corp.
  847 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, sufficient evidence for lost profits, a proper jury instruction on punitive damages, and that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause does not ap
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tekfen Constr. & Installation Co., Inc.
  847 F.2d 440· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions because Tekfen's arguments, while persistent, were not frivolous and were understandable given the court's inconsistent rulings and denial of discovery.
• Salas v. Sun-Mei Wang, M.D.
  846 F.2d 897· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to the admissibility of aggregate damages testimony in diversity cases, and that such testimony is permissible under those rules. It also held that one nurse's negligence could be inferred, but another's could not.
• United States v. Schlette
  842 F.2d 1574· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 26×
  Third parties generally lack standing to appeal denial of access to court records, but may seek review via mandamus. Disclosure of presentence reports to third parties requires a showing that it serves the ends of justice, balancing this need against confidentiality.
• Streetman v. Lynaugh
  835 F.2d 1521· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a prior stay of execution order dissolved by its own terms upon the conclusion of the appeal it was granted for, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a judgment denying habeas corpus relief
• United States v. Kelm
  827 F.2d 1319· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to counsel through his dilatory tactics and that the trial court did not err in denying his requests for continuances or reopening the case.
• Consol. Freightways Corp. OF Del. v. Larson
  827 F.2d 916· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the inadvertent misdirection of a notice of appeal, resulting in untimely filing, can constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) when counsel has made substantial good faith efforts to comply.
• United States v. Kramer
  827 F.2d 1174· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in reversing the district court's dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, finding both legal and factual errors in the majority's analysis.
• United States v. Lohman Ray Mays, Jr.
  822 F.2d 793· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government sufficiently proved the bank's federally insured status, the admission of dye-stained money was proper, and the admission of prior bad acts evidence was largely permissible, with one exception constituting harmless error. The court also found th
• United States v. Bush
  820 F.2d 858· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that Miranda warnings were not required for the defendant's voluntary statement made at his home.
• 3 Penny Theater Corp. v. Plitt Theatres, Inc.
  812 F.2d 337· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and in denying the motion to vacate the dismissal under Rule 60(b).
• Lawrence M. Abrams, M.D. v. Baylor Coll. OF Med.
  805 F.2d 528· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court's method of calculating attorneys' fees, even if not perfectly aligned with the majority's preferred sequence, was not an abuse of discretion, and the upward adjustment was permissible.
• Pinkie Mumford v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  814 F.2d 328· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen the judgment because the alleged newly discovered evidence was not likely to change the outcome of the case and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence.
• Pesaplastic v. Cincinnati Milacron Co.
  799 F.2d 1510· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the district court's contempt findings and cost judgments, finding no abuse of discretion in the sanctions imposed for discovery violations.
• United States v. Abodeely
  801 F.2d 1020· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 26×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's involvement in prostitution and gambling was admissible in his tax evasion trial because it was relevant to proving unreported taxable income and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
• United States v. Spitler
  800 F.2d 1267· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 26×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance and mistrial, as the defendants failed to demonstrate sufficiently irreconcilable defenses or actual prejudice from a joint trial. The court also affirmed Carpenter's extortion co
• Wilborn v. Escalderon
  789 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an order denying a request for counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is not immediately appealable, but the district court should have granted leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant and conduct discovery.
• Constantine John Gekas v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n OF the Supreme Court OF Ill. & Carl H. Rolewick
  793 F.2d 846· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Gekas was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but vacated the fee award due to inadequate explanation and remanded for recalculation.
• United States v. Sanchez
  790 F.2d 245· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that proceeding with a trial in absentia was not an abuse of discretion, a jury instruction on flight was harmless error, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• Jones v. United States
  783 F.2d 1477· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that alleged inaccuracies in a presentence report or a sentencing judge's subjective expectations about the Parole Commission's application of guidelines are insufficient grounds to vacate or amend a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Brown v. Darcy
  783 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting polygraph evidence and in refusing to instruct the jury that certain statements provided independent grounds for recovery.
• People OF the Vill. OF Gambell v. Hodel
  774 F.2d 1414· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as it failed to give proper weight to the statutory policy protecting Native Alaskan subsistence needs and culture.