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

• United States v. ONE 1978 Piper Navajo PA-31
  748 F.2d 316· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to set aside a default judgment because the claimant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the delay in filing and did not present a meritorious defense.
• United States v. Lisko
  747 F.2d 1234· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the appellant's banking practices and FDIC lawsuit, nor in refusing the proffered jury instruction, and that the denial of a new trial motion was proper.
• Virgil L. Hayden, M.D. v. Calvin Bracy, M.D.
  744 F.2d 1338· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that a private hospital's disciplinary actions do not constitute state action for § 1983 claims and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege an effect on interstate commerce for Sherman Act claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of defamation and con
• Horsey v. Asher
  741 F.2d 209· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 24×
  A complaint that states a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) cannot be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) simply because the plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis.
• Hiram ASH v. Cvetkov
  739 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, and interlocutory rulings do not merge into a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
• James and Joyce Ferrell v. Pierce
  743 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 24×
  The majority opinion upholds the district court's denial of HUD's motion to modify an Amended Stipulation and enjoins HUD from implementing its TMAP regulations.
• MacKowiak v. Univ. Nuclear Sys., Inc.
  735 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 24×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor erred in applying the dual motive analysis and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the employer would have terminated the employee even without the protected conduct.
• United States v. Dennis
  737 F.2d 617· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a recess for peremptory challenges, a mistrial, or motions for acquittal, and that the speedy trial rights of appellant Dennis were not violated.
• Alascom, Inc. v. ITT N. Elec. Co.
  727 F.2d 1419· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that none of the appellant's claims were arbitrable under the contract's arbitration provision, and therefore did not abuse its discretion in staying arbitration and refusing to stay its own proceedings.
• Perichak v. Int'l Union OF Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers, Local 601, AFL-CIO
  715 F.2d 78· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees to Westinghouse, as the record clearly indicated Perichak acted in bad faith by presenting perjured testimony and baseless claims.
• Herminio Armando Sanchez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  707 F.2d 1523· D.C. Cir.· 1983-05-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum or suspension of deportation due to insufficient factual support for claims of persecution and extreme hardship.
• Planet Corp. v. Sullivan
  702 F.2d 123· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by entertaining an untimely motion to vacate a default judgment, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion.
• Tr. Corp. OF Mont. v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  701 F.2d 85· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a nearly three-year delay in objecting to an attorney's representation, after knowing of a potential conflict of interest, constitutes a waiver of the right to disqualify the attorney.
• United States v. Sanford Darrell Chiago
  699 F.2d 1012· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that submitting a photograph of the victim to the Parole Commission is not a due process violation and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
• State OF Conn. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  696 F.2d 147· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-01 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Agency Discretion
  The court held that the EPA's approval of New York's SIP revision allowing LILCO to burn higher sulfur fuel was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, as the agency reasonably interpreted and applied the Clean Air Act's provisions regarding interstate pollution.
• United States v. Flemino
  691 F.2d 1263· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Sentencing
  The court held that the defendant caused the use of the mails in furtherance of the mail fraud scheme, and that the jury instructions and sentencing were not erroneous.
• United States v. Delegal
  678 F.2d 47· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in withdrawing a guilty plea based on a perceived ambiguity that was clarified by subsequent dialogue and the record.
• Dunlop v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  672 F.2d 1044· 2d Cir.· 1982-02-10 ·cited 24×
  The majority erred by amending a Rule 41 stipulation without a hearing, thereby depriving Pan American of due process and establishing a bad precedent.
• Hardy L. Paschal v. Fla. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n
  666 F.2d 1381· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint to add a due process theory, nor in denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the First Amendment claim.
• United States v. Brubaker
  663 F.2d 764· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, affirming the judgment.
• United States v. Mooney
  654 F.2d 482· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the government's opposition to the defendant's Rule 35 motion did not breach the plea agreement, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence or denying the motion to reduce it.
• Flint v. Haynes
  651 F.2d 970· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 24×
  A district court may assess costs against civil rights litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
• United States & Donald Jackson v. Stuckey
  646 F.2d 1369· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the taxpayer failed to demonstrate the IRS acted in bad faith, thus discovery and further hearing were not warranted.
• United States v. Tucker
  638 F.2d 1292· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that waitresses performing functions necessary or helpful to an illegal gambling business can be counted towards the five-person jurisdictional requirement, and that the same five individuals need not participate for the entire 30-day period.
• Randall v. Wyrick
  642 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction for alleged inadequate medical treatment is affirmed because the inmate failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or probable success on the merits.
• LAS Cruces TV Cable v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  645 F.2d 1041· D.C. Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the FCC's refund-pool plan was a reasonable exercise of discretion, but remanded the issue of ATR's expense calculations due to a lack of traceable reasoning.
• Concerned Citizens ON I-190 v. Sec'y OF Transp.
  641 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adequately addressed potential environmental dangers, public hearings were sufficient, and the determination regarding recreation land was proper, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Brandt v. French
  638 F.2d 209· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony and visual aids, and that the jury instructions substantially covered the requested subject matter.
• Sheehy v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  631 F.2d 649· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-03 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that admitting evidence of collateral disability benefits in a FELA action is reversible error, and that the Federal Safety Appliance Act claim should have been submitted to the jury.
• United States v. Artlet Smith
  629 F.2d 650· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidence Admission
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior misconduct and the timing of the entrapment instruction did not constitute reversible error.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wencke
  622 F.2d 1363· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-09 ·cited 24×
  A district court, in an SEC enforcement action, has the equitable authority to issue a stay, effective against non-parties with notice, prohibiting all proceedings against receivership entities when necessary to protect the receivership estate.
• Campbell Indus. v. M/V Gemini
  619 F.2d 24· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding an expert witness due to discovery violations and in denying amendments to the pre-trial order for additional witnesses, nor did it err in finding lost profits were not proven.
• Charlotte Diane Edwards for Debora A. Long and Clayton D. Long v. Califano
  619 F.2d 865· 10th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 24×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the claimant established that the wage earner was "unexplainedly absent" under the regulation, triggering a presumption of death, and the Secretary failed to rebut this presumption.
• United States v. Vargas
  606 F.2d 341· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, as there was no sufficient showing of actual bias or prejudice, nor mental incompetency that would have affected the juror's service.
• Citizens Utils. Co. v. The Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  595 F.2d 1171· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that dismissing the action for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion, given the defendants' significant contributions to the delay.
• David v. Longenecker
  594 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-09 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the case to the jury, admitting the recall letter and expert's prior statement, or in its jury instructions regarding defect and causation.
• Forrest Petty v. Manpower, Inc.
  591 F.2d 615· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 24×
  An order dismissing a complaint for lack of prosecution, when intended by the district court to dismiss the entire action, is an appealable order.
• Preston v. Thompson
  589 F.2d 300· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering immediate implementation of specific shower and recreation requirements in the context of a dangerous post-riot prison environment.
• United States v. Ives
  574 F.2d 1002· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for a psychiatric examination without considering proffered testimony, violating the defendant's due process rights.
• In re Gypsum Antitrust Cases. Advance Drywall Co. v. United States Gypsum Co.
  565 F.2d 1123· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Advance Drywall Company's late claim because the notice sent to Len's Dry Wall Company was sufficient under the circumstances and Advance failed to show its claim was treated inconsistently with ot
• Winthrop J. Allegaert v. Perot
  565 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that attorneys are not disqualified if they continuously represented clients adverse to the party seeking disqualification, even if they performed some work for that party with the party's knowledge.
• United States v. Sanders
  563 F.2d 379· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying pretrial severance, that mid-trial severance was adequate relief, and that evidence of prior claims was properly admitted. The court remanded only to correct the restitution amount.
• United States v. Strauss
  563 F.2d 127· 4th Cir.· 1977-10-13 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing.
• Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
  562 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to deny manufacture of the product after the statute of limitations had run, nor in ordering a separate trial on the issue of manufacture.
• United States v. Dudek
  560 F.2d 1288· 6th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse discretion admitting evidence of other crimes under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
• Union Mechling Corp. v. The United States & the Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  566 F.2d 722· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Commission erred in excluding Panama Canal Act issues from the pending proceeding and should have considered them.
• United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc.
  553 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene as untimely.
• Boston Edison Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  557 F.2d 845· D.C. Cir.· 1977-05-17 ·cited 24×·via Abuse Of Administrative Discretion
  The Commission lacked the authority to reject a rate filing that was submitted pursuant to then-effective regulations, based on a new standard announced after the filing but before rejection.
• Skil Corp. v. Millers Falls Co.
  541 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Seventh Circuit's prior denial of Skil's petition for a writ of mandamus, which addressed the same transfer issue, was res judicata and established the validity of the transfer as the law of the case.
• Provisioners Frozen Express, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  536 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petition for review was untimely and that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitions to reopen the proceedings.