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

• Manning v. Cooper
  981 So. 2d 668· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-05-21 ·cited 23×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida granted Manning's petition for certiorari and quashed a trial court order disqualifying her counsel, holding that the attorney's receipt of opposing party's SIU statement did not automatically warrant disqualification and that no con
• Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Dunn
  977 So. 2d 594· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-11-20 ·cited 23×
  Shands Teaching Hospital appeals a $2 million jury verdict for medical negligence in the death of a child following heart surgery. The appellate court reverses, finding the trial court committed reversible error by excluding evidence of the hospital's routine practice of requirin
• Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Moreta
  957 So. 2d 1242· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-05-02 ·cited 23×
  Mercury Insurance appeals a jury verdict awarding uninsured motorist (UM) benefits to Moreta for injuries from a motor vehicle accident. The court affirms, holding that although opposing counsel's closing argument remarks about Mercury's litigation practices and alleged breach of
• Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v. Elsenheimer
  952 So. 2d 575· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-03-02 ·cited 23×
  Florida Health Sciences Center (Tampa General Hospital) appealed orders denying its motion to transfer venue and granting class certification in a lawsuit by uninsured patients challenging the hospital's billing and collection practices under the Florida Consumer Collection Pract
• Izquierdo v. Gyroscope, Inc.
  946 So. 2d 115· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-01-10 ·cited 23×
  In this slip-and-fall negligence case, a Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial, finding that the jury verdict of no negligence was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The court held that the restaurant's admission that we
• Cargile-Schrage v. Schrage
  908 So. 2d 528· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-07-20 ·cited 23×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  A wife appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a continuance to allow her third attorney to represent her, which forced her to proceed pro se at trial. The court affirmed, holding that the den
• Barkett v. Gomez
  908 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-06-15 ·cited 23×
  The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the statute prohibiting pedestrians from walking on a roadway when a sidewalk is available, as there was evidence supporting the instruction. The exclusion of a photograph and the plaintiff's comment on an uncalled witness
• Snipes v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp.
  885 So. 2d 899· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-09-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a party's voluntary general appearance waives personal jurisdiction defenses and that a party's failure to protect their own interests cannot be grounds to vacate a judgment to the detriment of innocent parties.
• DeVAUGHN v. DeVAUGHN
  840 So. 2d 1128· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-03-26 ·cited 23×
  Cheryl Ann DeVaughn appeals the trial court's appointment of her brother-in-law, Michael DeVaughn, as personal representative of her deceased son Rusty's estate, which would give the uncle control of a wrongful death action. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial co
• McCARTHY Bros. Co. v. Tilbury Constr., Inc.
  849 So. 2d 7· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-03-10 ·cited 23×
  McCarthy Brothers appealed a jury verdict awarding Tilbury Construction $374,709.00 for breach of a subcontract, and attorney's fees awards to both Tilbury and surety Nobel Insurance. The appellate court reversed the damages award as excessive, reduced the attorney's fee multipli
• NET First Nat'l Bank v. First Telebanc Corp.
  834 So. 2d 944· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-01-22 ·cited 23×
  Net First National Bank executives and shareholders appeal a temporary injunction that prevented them from acting as directors of the Bank and its holding company. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the lower court abused its discretion by granting the inj
• Weems v. State
  645 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-11-30 ·cited 23×
  The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw appointed counsel, the inquiry into the request to discharge counsel, or the failure to advise the appellant about the consequences of disch
• Taylor v. State
  640 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-05-25 ·cited 23×
  Walter Taylor was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing Paula Smits and her young daughter Amanda in 1987. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial due to cumulative prosecutorial misconduct that deprived Taylor of a fa
• THE Florida BAR v. Wilson
  616 So. 2d 953· Fla.· 1993-03-04 ·cited 23×
• Roper v. State
  608 So. 2d 533· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-11-13 ·cited 23×
  Edward Roper appeals his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to inform the jury that testimony could be read back during deliberations after the jury requested to see the victim's cross-examination testimony. The
• King v. Palmer
  950 F.2d 771· D.C. Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 23×
  The en banc court overruled prior precedent (McKenzie) and held that contingency enhancements to attorney's fees under federal fee-shifting statutes are impermissible, as the plurality in Delaware Valley II dictates that a reasonable lodestar fee may not be enhanced to compensate
• United States v. Collins
  920 F.2d 619· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-27 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the jury instructions on good faith were proper and that the revocation of the attorney's pro hac vice admission was justified due to frivolous arguments and professional misconduct.
• Philip Banks v. Wolk
  918 F.2d 418· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a single real estate fraud scheme, lacking a threat of repetition, does not constitute a RICO pattern for defendants not involved in other alleged schemes. However, multiple fraudulent schemes over time by other defendants, related to RICO enterprises, can est
• Blu-J, Inc. v. Kemper C.P.A. Grp.
  916 F.2d 637· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred in directing a verdict on the negligence counts due to an intervening change in Florida law, but correctly directed a verdict on the third-party beneficiary count and properly excluded evidence related to settlement negotiations.
• Jones v. The Auto. Ins. Co. OF Hartford
  917 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred by converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without providing the required ten-day notice to the non-moving party. The court also affirmed the district court's interpretation of a statutory provision as a limit
• Graham v. Wyeth Labs.
  906 F.2d 1399· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the exclusion of expert testimony regarding a pre-vaccination stroke was an abuse of discretion, warranting a new trial, and that the district court erred in denying Wyeth's motion for post-judgment relief.
• Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. OF Am.
  902 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the limited repair remedy failed of its essential purpose, thus invalidating the contractual cap on consequential damages, and affirmed the trial court's damage award.
• Kass v. Kass
  560 So. 2d 293· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-04-18 ·cited 23×
  In this Florida dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of temporary attorney's fees, accounting fees, and expert witness fees to the wife. The court rejected the husband's challenge to including fees for related litigation, finding the
• Cruz v. Savage
  896 F.2d 626· 1st Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, finding the conduct to be an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Shirley
  884 F.2d 1130· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony, denying a motion to subpoena witnesses at government expense, admitting summary charts, denying a motion for acquittal, or denying a motion for continuance. The court affirmed the convicti
• Graeme MacArthur Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  862 F.2d 38· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-21 ·cited 23×
  A district court abuses its discretion by granting or denying a forum non conveniens motion without developing adequate facts and articulating specific reasons, and a foreign plaintiff's choice of forum should be given some weight, especially when choosing between two inconvenien
• United States v. Bordallo
  857 F.2d 519· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 23×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for witness tampering and conspiracy to obstruct justice were affirmed, but convictions for bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion were reversed.
• Willner v. Univ. OF Kan.
  848 F.2d 1023· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying recusal motions, compelling discovery, dismissing claims, or in its factual findings, and that the judgment was supported by the evidence.
• United States v. Thornberg
  844 F.2d 573· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendants' severance motions were properly handled, and other arguments regarding evidence, jury instructions, and preindictment delay lacked merit.
• In re F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon
  844 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court may grant retroactive approval of professional employment only in extraordinary circumstances, and that the broker's failure to seek timely approval, despite his sophistication and legal representation, did not constitute such circumstances.
• Scandinavian World Cruises (bahamas) v. Cronin
  509 So. 2d 1277· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-07-14 ·cited 23×
  Scandinavian World Cruises appeals a jury verdict awarding $190,712.50 in damages to a passenger who slipped and fell on wet stairs with inadequate lighting. The trial court denied the cruise line's post-trial motions for new trial, remittitur, and judgment notwithstanding the ve
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp.
  813 F.2d 1539· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-07 ·cited 23×
  A private settlement between an employee and employer does not moot the EEOC's claim for injunctive relief to vindicate public interest, but it does moot the EEOC's claim for back pay on behalf of that employee.
• Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng'g, Inc.
  813 F.2d 1207· Fed. Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing a subpoena for sales statistics, finding that the request was overly broad and lacked a sufficient showing of necessity.
• Edelstein v. Hon. Robert N. Wilentz
  812 F.2d 128· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the New Jersey Supreme Court Rule granting absolute immunity to ethics grievants is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in regulating attorney conduct and does not violate federal constitutional rights. The court also affirmed the denial of t
• United States v. Soudan
  812 F.2d 920· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, as there was no actual conflict of interest, and that the government's theory of prosecution did not constructively amend the indictment.
• United States v. Stotts
  792 F.2d 1318· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 23×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for severance, mistrial, admitting handwriting expert testimony, or in its jury charge regarding the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 876.
• United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Strasser
  492 So. 2d 399· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-06-04 ·cited 23×
  USAA appeals a trial court order striking its answer, entering default, and imposing contempt sanctions and attorney's fees for discovery violations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the default and pleading strike, finding the trial court abused its discretion by imp
• United States v. Fajardo
  787 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in excusing a juror for disruptive conduct and that the jury instruction given adequately addressed concerns about addict-witness testimony.
• United States v. Fixen
  780 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to suppress evidence and disclose the informant's identity, as probable cause for the arrest existed and disclosure was not essential for the defense.
• Probe v. State Teachers' Ret. Sys. & Teachers' Ret. Bd.
  780 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the State Teachers' Retirement System's use of sex-segregated actuarial tables to calculate optional retirement benefits violates Title VII, but reversed the award of retroactive relief and the Equal Pay Act claims.
• Harsco Corp. v. Lucjan Zlotnicki
  779 F.2d 906· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the employment agreement was enforceable, providing adequate consideration and not being signed under economic duress, thus affirming summary judgment for the employer.
• Jeffries v. Chicago Transit Auth.
  770 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff's employment discrimination claim was barred by laches due to his inexcusable delay and the resulting prejudice to the defendant.
• ON/TV OF Chicago v. Julien
  763 F.2d 839· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant's sale of decoder kits capable of unscrambling subscription television signals likely violated Section 605 of the Communications Act, and a preliminary injunction was appropriate.
• Blanton v. Anzalone
  760 F.2d 989· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the prohibited transaction claim was barred by the statute of limitations, but the breach of fiduciary duty claim for undercharging rent was valid. The denial of attorneys' fees was affirmed, but the prejudgment interest rate was vacated and remanded for recal
• Aussie L. Robinson v. Monsanto Co.
  758 F.2d 331· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the magistrate had jurisdiction, the juror's nondisclosure did not warrant an evidentiary hearing, the jury instructions were proper, and attorneys' fees were not warranted for the defendant.
• Gifford v. Heckler
  741 F.2d 263· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions and contempt charges, and that Gifford is not entitled to state cost-of-living increases.
• McCARTHY v. Kleindienst
  741 F.2d 1406· D.C. Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying class certification for the false arrest, constitutional, and conspiracy claims, and that the abuse of process claim should also be considered for class treatment, potentially through subclasses.
• United States v. Ospina
  739 F.2d 448· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 23×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the challenged evidence was properly admitted.
• Tavoulareas v. The Wash. Post Co.
  737 F.2d 1170· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the case should be remanded to the District Court for reconsideration of the justification for a protective order in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart.
• United States v. Castello
  724 F.2d 813· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a prosecutor's "all-or-nothing" plea offer to multiple defendants, including a threat to prosecute one defendant as a "special dangerous offender" if the case went to trial, did not constitute improper coercion rendering a guilty plea involuntary.