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

• Jennings v. State
  124 So. 3d 257· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-09-11 ·cited 24×
  Carlos Jennings appeals his conviction for attempted trafficking in cocaine, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession and the trial court's decision to issue a curative instruction rather than grant a mistrial after improper prosecutorial remarks. The T
• In re Guardianship OF William Ansley v. Fay Howard
  94 So. 3d 711· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-08-17 ·cited 24×
  The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a circuit court's order awarding attorney's fees in a guardianship case because the order was internally inconsistent and lacked sufficient findings of fact. The trial court approved specific hourly rates and hours worked
• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reeves
  92 So. 3d 249· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-06-13 ·cited 24×
  Wells Fargo appealed a trial court's dismissal with prejudice of a mortgage foreclosure action based on defendants' motion to dismiss. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing on fraud-upon-the-court grounds without clear and
• Acosta v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. in Tr. for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Tr. 2006-M3
  88 So. 3d 415· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-05-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from a foreclosure judgment without an evidentiary hearing, where the motion alleged excusable neglect and meritorious defenses.
• Sottilaro v. Maricela Figueroa
  86 So. 3d 505· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-02-08 ·cited 24×
  In this wrongful death appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment against the Sottilaros, who struck a pedestrian with their vehicle, on the basis that the trial court erroneously excluded impeachment evidence from witness testimony by misinterpreting
• Miami-Dade Cnty. & Sergeant Patricia Sedano v. Ahmed Asad
  78 So. 3d 660· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-01-25 ·cited 24×
  Miami-Dade County and Sergeant Patricia Sedaño appealed a jury verdict finding them liable for false arrest of three men (Asad, Garcia, and Rivera) arrested as principals to an armed burglary and aggravated assault following a beating of an innocent victim during bondsman warrant
• Ortiz v. State
  36 So. 3d 901· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-06-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the state failed to prove the value of the stolen checkbook, and therefore the conviction for first degree petit theft could not stand. The court rejected the argument that the value of the entire bank account should be considered the value of the checkbook.
• Morgan v. Coats
  33 So. 3d 59· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-03-05 ·cited 24×
  Douglas Morgan appealed the denial of his motion to certify a class action on behalf of detention deputies who claimed they worked unpaid meal breaks. The appellate court reversed, holding that Morgan satisfied all requirements for class certification under Florida Rule of Civil
• Eaglin v. State
  19 So. 3d 935· Fla.· 2009-06-04 ·cited 24×
  Dwight Eaglin was convicted of two first-degree murders committed during a prison escape attempt and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentences, finding sufficient evidence of premeditation and cold, calculated conduct, and rejectin
• Nowell v. State
  998 So. 2d 597· Fla.· 2008-12-30 ·cited 24×
  Willie Nowell was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing Michelle Gill during a home invasion robbery. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court committed clear error in allowing a racially discrimin
• SDG Dadeland Assocs., Inc. v. Anthony
  979 So. 2d 997· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-02-13 ·cited 24×
  SDG Dadeland Associates appealed a jury verdict in favor of Violet Anthony in a slip-and-fall case, arguing that plaintiff's counsel engaged in improper and prejudicial trial conduct. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that counsel's inflammatory a
• Smith v. State
  954 So. 2d 1191· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-04-18 ·cited 24×
  Herbert Smith, a public defender supervisor, was found guilty of direct criminal contempt for allegedly disrupting court proceedings and violating a court order to submit a written memorandum. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt t
• Collado v. Pavlow
  951 So. 2d 69· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The trial court abused its discretion by adopting a magistrate's report and dismissing the action without affording the appellant a hearing on her objections.
• Segarra v. Segarra
  947 So. 2d 543· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-12-27 ·cited 24×
  In this family law appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of both the mother's petition to relocate with the child to another Florida county and the father's petition to modify custody to establish rotating custody. The court held that the mo
• Woodfaulk v. State
  935 So. 2d 1225· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-08-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying an accelerated hearing on a public records request, as section 119.11 mandates such hearings when an action is filed to enforce the chapter.
• Goode v. State
  856 So. 2d 1101· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-10-22 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Jury Instructions
  Joseph Goode was convicted of aggravated battery after a physical altercation in an apartment. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred in denying Goode's requested jury instruction on the legal defense of others, even though Goode h
• Manhardt v. Shameem Tamton, M.D., Susan W. Short Pediatrics, P.A.
  832 So. 2d 129· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-09-04 ·cited 24×
  In this medical malpractice case, the Florida appellate court reversed a jury verdict for the defendants and ordered a new trial, finding that cumulative trial errors—including improper credibility attacks on plaintiff's expert witness and prejudicial closing argument comments—vi
• Ingorvaia v. Horton
  816 So. 2d 1256· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-05-31 ·cited 24×
  Ingorvaia, the successful bidder at a foreclosure sale, appeals an order vacating that sale. The court affirmed the vacation, holding that when adequacy of bid price is not at issue, Florida courts may vacate a foreclosure sale based on irregularities and due process violations u
• Knox v. Dist. Sch. Bd. OF Brevard
  821 So. 2d 311· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-05-03 ·cited 24×
  Knox appealed the denial of her request for a temporary injunction against the Brevard County School Board, claiming that closed interviews for a middle school principal position violated Florida's Sunshine Law. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the interview team serve
• Krafchuk v. Krafchuk
  804 So. 2d 376· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-10-03 ·cited 24×
  Robert Krafchuk appeals a dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the equitable distribution of assets, denial of permanent alimony, and attorney's fees award. The appellate court affirmed the asset distribution and alimony denial but reversed and remanded the attorney's fe
• Johnson v. State
  747 So. 2d 436· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-12-15 ·cited 24×
  Johnson was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and appealed on three grounds: denial of a jury instruction on impeachment by prior conviction, denial of two motions for mistrial based on allegedly improper prosecutor and detective statements, and trial court error in handling ju
• W.J. Spradley, Jr. v. OLD Harmony Baptist Church
  721 So. 2d 735· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-07-27 ·cited 24×
  The court reversed an injunctive order issued by the trial court that imposed requirements on the appellants regarding use of disputed property by a church, finding the injunction was legally insufficient because it was entered sua sponte without a proper request, contained manda
• Rosalio Rios v. State
  696 So. 2d 469· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-02 ·cited 24×
  The trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into the defendant's desire to discharge his court-appointed counsel.
• Broward Cnty. v. LaPOINTE
  685 So. 2d 889· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-11-13 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Fee Awards
  In this eminent domain appeal, Broward County challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the LaPointes' counsel in a property condemnation dispute involving environmental contamination issues. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's calculatio
• Garcia v. State
  659 So. 2d 388· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-07-19 ·cited 24×
  Rolando Garcia was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child based largely on hearsay statements made by the child victim to various adults. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to make the case-specific findings of reliability required by Florida
• Edgecumbe v. Am. Gen. Corp.
  613 So. 2d 123· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-02-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for lack of prosecution, as the plaintiffs failed to show good cause for the inactivity.
• Atkins v. Atkins
  611 So. 2d 570· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-31 ·cited 24×
  Janet Atkins appeals a dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the trial court's award of $750 per month in permanent periodic alimony as inadequate. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the alimony award constitutes a clear abuse of discretion because it fa
• Fazzolari v. The City OF W. Palm Beach
  608 So. 2d 927· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-11-18 ·cited 24×
  Frank Fazzolari appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident with a city police officer, challenging the trial court's denial of his challenges for cause during jury selection and its refusal to overturn the jury's failure to award future
• United States v. Chaney
  964 F.2d 437· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction and restitution order, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, indictment sufficiency, evidence sufficiency, or restitution calculation.
• United States v. Streit
  962 F.2d 894· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for assault on a federal officer and using a firearm during a crime of violence was affirmed, but his sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing due to an improper upward departure.
• United States v. Saunders
  957 F.2d 1488· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the search warrant was sufficiently particular and the upward departure in sentencing was reasonable, but the upward departure for supervised release was improper as it exceeded the statutory maximum.
• Romberg v. Nichols
  953 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 24×
  The Rombergs are prevailing parties entitled to a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because they succeeded on a significant issue that altered the legal relationship with the defendants.
• VAN Skiver v. United States
  952 F.2d 1241· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, as it did not present grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).
• United States v. Schaff
  948 F.2d 501· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's untimely motions to proceed pro se and substitute counsel, nor in admitting the ledger and hearsay evidence, and that the jury instructions were proper.
• Bell v. Bell
  587 So. 2d 642· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-10-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by not making sufficient findings to support a disproportionate equitable distribution award based on marital misconduct.
• United States v. Lopez
  944 F.2d 33· 1st Cir.· 1991-09-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting a plea agreement, refusing to recuse, limiting cross-examination, denying acquittal motions, or refusing a new trial, and that the sentencing decision was not reviewable.
• Files v. State
  586 So. 2d 352· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-08-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the jury panel, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Moore
  936 F.2d 1508· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an accomplice's statement, limiting cross-examination, or admitting palm print evidence, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• United States v. Santos
  932 F.2d 244· 3d Cir.· 1991-05-03 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court's failure to define 'preponderance of the evidence' and instruct on threats to children did not constitute plain error.
• Trooper Alvin T. Pontarelli v. Stone
  930 F.2d 104· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a notice of appeal using "et al." is insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction for unnamed parties and that mistaken reliance on "et al." does not constitute excusable neglect for extending the appeal deadline. The court also affirmed that sex discriminati
• United States v. Sellers
  926 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding prior dumping was proper, the jury instructions regarding knowledge were not plain error, and the sentencing guidelines were correctly applied.
• Worlds v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  929 F.2d 591· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was insufficient and intervention was properly denied. The court also refused to sanction the appellant for raising additional claims.
• United States v. Shaw
  920 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a defendant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute based on inconsistent penalty provisions if the district court sentenced him under the less severe provision, and that the oral sentence pronouncement prevails over a conflicting writte
• United States v. Wylie
  919 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the defendant's objection to surplusage in the indictment was untimely.
• Borden, Inc. v. Meiji Milk Prods. Co., Ltd.
  919 F.2d 822· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunctions in aid of arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds was proper.
• United States v. Castiello
  915 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the agent's interpretation of the defendant's taped admission was admissible, the entrapment defense was not improperly forced, and the statute's notice deficiency did not violate due process as the defendant was not ha
• Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale
  566 So. 2d 1343· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-09-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver without notice and expanding the receivership to include Puma, but modified the order to require a larger bond.
• United States v. Khorrami
  895 F.2d 1186· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for mailing threatening communications and that the admission of certain phone call tapes was proper.
• United States v. Fuller
  887 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no reversible error in the jury selection, evidence admission, closing arguments, or sentencing.
• United States v. Bernal
  884 F.2d 1518· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both appellants, finding no merit in their challenges regarding sentencing, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of evidence.