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

• Devoney v. State
  717 So. 2d 501· Fla.· 1998-06-12 ·cited 84×
  Peter Devoney was convicted of DUI manslaughter after a jury deliberated despite being instructed to disregard evidence of a prior speeding ticket. The Florida Supreme Court held that jurors' discussions of trial evidence they were instructed to disregard constitute an internal m
• Operation Rescue v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc.
  626 So. 2d 664· Fla.· 1993-10-28 ·cited 84×
  Operation Rescue challenged an amended permanent injunction restricting its anti-abortion demonstrations outside a medical clinic and near employees' homes. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the injunction, holding that content-neutral, narrowly tailored restrictions on the time,
• United States v. Ofchinick
  877 F.2d 251· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the district court properly calculated the defendant's offense level and criminal history category under the sentencing guidelines, affirming the judgment of sentence.
• United States v. Martino
  759 F.2d 998· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 84×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the admission of a prior conviction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp
  745 F.2d 1221· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 84×
  A court may dismiss a frivolous in forma pauperis action before service of process, and such an action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
• United States v. Mardian
  546 F.2d 973· D.C. Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 84×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's second motion for severance, which was based on the illness of his lead counsel and the disproportionately weaker evidence against him compared to co-defendants.
• Weller v. Dickson
  314 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1963-02-15 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the trial courts did not abuse their discretion in denying appellants' applications to proceed in forma pauperis, and that the allegations in Pope's complaint were insufficient to merit a hearing.
• Wodford v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2024-06-26 ·cited 83×
  Appellant challenged his convictions and sentences for five counts of child abuse under Florida Statutes section 827.03(1)(b)2., arguing the jury verdict was legally inconsistent because he was acquitted of shooting into a building and found guilty only of assault on aggravated a
• McMAHAN v. Toto
  311 F.3d 1077· 11th Cir.· 2002-11-06 ·cited 83×
  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Florida's offer of judgment statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.79, applies to cases tried in Florida even if governed by another state's substantive law. The court also found that an offer of judgment was facially valid, even without explici
• Steiner v. State
  604 So. 2d 1265· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-09-09 ·cited 83×
  Kenneth Steiner appeals the revocation of his probation for violating a special condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Steiner's contact with his sixteen-year-old niece was a technical rather than willful
• Robins v. Harum
  773 F.2d 1004· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 83×
  The court held that an excessive use of force claim by law enforcement officers during the post-arrest transport of an arrestee is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a Fourth Amendment violation, and the Parratt analysis does not apply to such claims.
• Fleming v. Fleming
  710 So. 2d 601· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-03-18 ·cited 82×
  Nancy Fleming appeals from a final judgment dissolving her marriage, challenging the trial court's denial of her motion for continuance. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance when her first attorney was disbarr
• United States v. 2
  726 F.2d 1481· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 82×
  The court affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding the government's position was substantially justified and there was no bad faith. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the recoupment claim.
• Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.
  717 F.2d 1380· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 82×
  The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on the punitive portion of damages, but affirmed the district court's findings on patent validity, infringement, willful infringement, and the amount of damages.
• Reinhold Constr., Inc. v. City Council FOR the City OF Vero Beach
  429 So. 2d 699· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-01-26 ·cited 82×
• Blum v. Blum
  382 So. 2d 52· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-03-04 ·cited 82×
  Dr. Harvey Blum appealed a final judgment of dissolution that imposed financial obligations exceeding $4,000 per month—including $1,400 in permanent alimony, $1,500 in child support, and various other payments—which the court found to be egregiously excessive and an abuse of disc
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Aalco Wrecking Co., Inc.
  466 F.2d 179· 8th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 82×
  The panel's decision to reverse the trial court's order granting a new trial and reinstate the jury verdict is incorrect.
• ELI Lilly & Co., Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc.
  460 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 82×·via Abuse Of Discretion (Appellate Review)
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, finding the patent valid and infringed, and that the procedural conduct of the trial court was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Eagleston
  417 F.2d 11· 10th Cir.· 1969-10-17 ·cited 82×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that Faubian was misjoined as a defendant under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) and his conviction must be reversed, while Eagleston's convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Marrian Kolesar and Andrew Kolesar
  313 F.2d 835· 5th Cir.· 1963-02-27 ·cited 82×
  Expert witness fees are not taxable costs against the government under the FTCA, but costs for copies of depositions may be taxed if found to be necessarily obtained for use in the case, subject to the trial judge's discretion.
• Geer v. David Neal Jacobsen, Brian James Almengual, & Almengual & Warner, P.A.
  880 So. 2d 717· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-05-07 ·cited 81×
  Paula Geer appeals a trial court order vacating a default judgment against Almengual. The appellate court reverses, holding that Almengual failed to establish excusable neglect and a meritorious defense necessary to set aside the default and default judgment.
• Conklin Wallace v. Christensen
  802 F.2d 1539· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 81×
  The court held that while constitutional and statutory challenges to Parole Commission decisions are reviewable, claims alleging violations of the Guidelines or regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act are not reviewable if Congress has committed such decisions to agenc
• Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  684 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing attorneys' fees by 25% but erred in allowing a similar reduction for costs and expenses, which must be itemized and verified.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig. Adams Extract Co. v. Pleasure Hours, Inc.
  643 F.2d 195· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 81×
  The court held that conflicts of interest did not invalidate the pre-January 5 settlements, but remanded the case for more detailed findings regarding the adequacy of the settlements and the distribution plan.
• Randolph v. State
  853 So. 2d 1051· Fla.· 2003-04-24 ·cited 80×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  Richard Barry Randolph, a death-sentenced inmate, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion and petitioned for habeas corpus relief, raising claims of judicial bias from ex parte communications, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other constitutional violati
• State v. Spaziano
  692 So. 2d 174· Fla.· 1997-04-17 ·cited 80×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's order granting a new trial for death row inmate Joseph Spaziano based on newly discovered evidence of recanted testimony by the State's key trial witness, Anthony DiLisio. The Court held that where competent evidence supports a t
• United States v. Garcia
  785 F.2d 214· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 80×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, cross-examination, admission of co-defendant testimony, suppression of evidence, or sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy charge.
• Laurence G. Russell v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.
  775 F.2d 1284· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-23 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the amended Equal Access to Justice Act applies to cases pending at the time of its enactment, and that the Board's underlying action was not substantially justified, entitling the plaintiff to attorney fees for all time spent contesting the merits.
• Donovan v. Bierwirth
  680 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 80×
  The court held that while corporate officers serving as pension plan trustees must act solely in the plan participants' interests, they do not violate their duties by incidentally benefiting the corporation if they conduct a careful, impartial investigation. However, their action
• Peak v. Ewell A. Peak
  411 So. 2d 325· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-24 ·cited 80×
  In this dissolution of marriage case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of alimony to the wife, finding an abuse of discretion in the inadequate child support award of $50/week and the denial of attorney's fees. The court held that the t
• Silas v. Sears
  586 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-14 ·cited 80×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion because dismissal was too severe a sanction for the attorney's neglect.
• Dicky D. Voegeli and Sharon Voegeli v. Harvard R. Lewis & Methodist Hosp.
  568 F.2d 89· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 80×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that while the jury verdict for the hospital was supported, the trial court's rulings on discovery and cross-examination unfairly prejudiced the plaintiffs' case against the doctor, necessitating a new trial for claims against him.
• United States v. Lewis
  547 F.2d 1030· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 80×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a severance, admitting identification evidence, limiting voir dire, or in its handling of prosecutorial remarks during closing arguments.
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Videfreeze Corp.
  540 F.2d 1171· 3d Cir.· 1976-08-25 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the insureds, not the insurer, bore the burden of proof for coverage in this declaratory judgment action, and that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because sufficient evidence existed to create a jury question on causation
• In re Gregory v. Gregory
  313 So. 2d 735· Fla.· 1975-03-19 ·cited 80×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Second District Court of Appeal's decision vacating a child custody change order. The trial judge properly exercised discretion in denying the mother's motion for continuance and had sufficient evidence to support changing custody from mothe
• United States v. Ellenbogen
  365 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-15 ·cited 80×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying continuances, admitting business records and a chart, refusing to allow the defendant to discharge counsel, or excusing an ill juror.
• United States v. Houlihan
  332 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1964-05-19 ·cited 80×·via Abuse Of Discretion In Denying Continuance
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excusing a juror in the absence of counsel due to an emergency, nor was there a fatal variance or insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands Int'l
  965 F.3d 1238· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-16 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking privacy protections for pseudonyms and private facts, as the appellants failed to demonstrate a substantial privacy right outweighing the presumption of judicial openness.
• United States v. Turner
  871 F.2d 1574· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the jury instructions were accurate, the discovery violation did not prejudice the defendant, and the admission of coconspirator statements was either proper or harmless error.
• Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Nicolet Instrument Corp.
  739 F.2d 604· Fed. Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the jury's findings of patent validity and infringement were supported by substantial evidence, but vacated the denial of prejudgment interest, remanding for further consideration.
• V. T. A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc.
  597 F.2d 220· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-19 ·cited 79×
  The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, finding the sixteen-month delay unreasonable for claims under 60(b)(5) and (6), and the judgment not void under 60(b)(4). The court also affirmed the denial of the contempt motion, finding the differences between the Vac-Tec
• United States v. Birdie Louise Joshua Harris
  501 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-24 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's residence, nor was the trial court's active participation in questioning witnesses erroneous.
• Friedman v. United States
  200 F.2d 690· 8th Cir.· 1952-12-31 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to withdraw guilty pleas after sentencing, as the pleas were voluntarily and knowingly entered.
• ALL Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  887 F.2d 1535· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-13 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a district court must make specific factual findings regarding market power and control over essential competitive elements before applying the per se rule to cooperative buying arrangements and price-fixing claims.
• United States v. Douglas
  874 F.2d 1145· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the evidence presented at the first trial was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions, and therefore, their retrial did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also found sufficient evidence presented at the second trial to support the conv
• Camenisch v. The Univ. OF Tex.
  616 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 78×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that a private right of action exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for injunctive relief, and that plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
• United States v. Pelton
  578 F.2d 701· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuance motions, denying discovery of grand jury testimony, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Defendant Pelton waived his severance claim and lacked standing to challeng
• Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.
  570 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, but vacated the award of attorney's fees for reconsideration.
• Mayberry v. Maroney
  558 F.2d 1159· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-07 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in vacating the consent judgment because the Commonwealth failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying such extraordinary relief. The court also held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in refusi
• Mrs. Harvey Stancill v. McKENZIE Tank Lines, Inc.
  497 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony, allowing a counterclaim, or entering judgment on the jury's verdict, as the jury's findings had a rational basis in the evidence and any alleged inconsistencies were waived or harmless.