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

• Geoghegan v. Geoghegan
  969 So. 2d 482· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-11-16 ·cited 18×
  Barbara Geoghegan appeals a final judgment dissolving her 31-year marriage to Timothy Geoghegan. The appellate court affirms most aspects of the judgment but reverses the alimony award and the denial of attorney's fees, finding the trial court failed to provide adequate findings
• Muller v. Melonie R. Muller
  964 So. 2d 732· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-08-01 ·cited 18×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's order granting a mother permission to relocate with the minor child from Miami to Grand Junction, Colorado. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on unsupported speculation about the moth
• Price v. Price
  951 So. 2d 55· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-03-09 ·cited 18×
  Robert Price appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Nicole Price, challenging awards of alimony and attorneys' fees. The appellate court upheld the $500 monthly permanent alimony award but reversed the $5,555.50 attorneys' fees award, and used the occasion to overrul
• Angeline Alois v. Alois
  937 So. 2d 171· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-08-09 ·cited 18×
  A former wife appeals a child support order requiring $786 per month plus contributions toward medical expenses and private school tuition. The appellate court reverses, finding the trial court abused its discretion by ordering support the former wife cannot afford while meeting
• Wyatt v. Milner Document Prods., Inc.
  932 So. 2d 487· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-06-14 ·cited 18×
  In this fee dispute arising from underlying personal injury litigation, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of prejudgment interest to Larmoyeux and Hewko and its denial of Wyatt and Hewko's motion to tax costs against Montgomery. The court held t
• Myles Kenneth Leighton v. First Universal Lending, LLC
  925 So. 2d 462· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-04-12 ·cited 18×
  An injunction enforcing a non-compete agreement may be affirmed against an employee but reversed against a non-party business entity if that entity was not properly served or given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Ware v. Polk Cnty.
  918 So. 2d 977· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-12-09 ·cited 18×
  Paul Ware built a Quonset-type structure on his Polk County property without obtaining a required building permit in violation of county code. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County and denied the County's motion for a temporary injunction. The appellate court di
• Smith v. Orhama Inc.
  907 So. 2d 594· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-07-20 ·cited 18×
  Elaine and Mark Smith appealed a directed verdict entered against them in a personal injury case arising from a taxi accident, along with a jury verdict in favor of the remaining defendant and sanctions awarded to defendants. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the appella
• Harris v. State
  898 So. 2d 1126· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-03-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of a willful violation of probation.
• Parker v. Est. OF Hartford E. Bealer
  890 So. 2d 508· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-01-05 ·cited 18×
  A beneficiary of a decedent's will challenged the probate court's confirmation of venue in Florida and denial of a stay in favor of Maryland proceedings, arguing she was not properly served with notice of administration. The court affirmed, holding that service on her Maryland at
• Howell v. Winkle
  866 So. 2d 192· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-02-24 ·cited 18×
  In this negligence action arising from an automobile accident, the trial court erroneously directed verdicts on both the plaintiff's comparative negligence and the defendant's negligence, depriving the jury of the opportunity to apportion fault. The appellate court reversed and r
• A.P.D. Holdings, Inc. v. Reidel
  865 So. 2d 682· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-02-18 ·cited 18×
  A.P.D. Holdings, Inc. appeals the trial court's order dissolving a writ of attachment against property owned by Rachel Reidel. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying APD's motion to continue the hearing on the dissolution motio
• Wheeler v. State
  807 So. 2d 94· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-01-15 ·cited 18×
  A defendant does not have an absolute right to appointed counsel for postconviction relief in non-capital cases, and a request made for the first time during an evidentiary hearing is generally considered untimely.
• Leo's Gulf Liquors v. Chandresh Lakhani
  802 So. 2d 337· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-09-05 ·cited 18×
  Leo's Gulf Liquors appeals the dismissal of its fraud complaint against the sellers of a liquor store. The trial court dismissed the action based on fraud upon the court, finding that the plaintiff's officers repeatedly lied under oath during depositions about material facts rega
• Jacoby v. Jacoby
  763 So. 2d 410· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-05-26 ·cited 18×
  In a custody dispute following divorce, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's award of primary residential custody to the father, finding that the court improperly relied on the mother's sexual orientation and her lesbian partnership in making the custody determi
• Thomas v. Thomas
  724 So. 2d 1246· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-01-27 ·cited 18×
  In this child custody modification case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to transfer proceedings to Ohio, holding that Florida was an inconvenient forum and that Ohio was the more appropriate venue under the Uniform Child Custody
• Erol Vural v. State
  717 So. 2d 65· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-07-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting Williams Rule evidence and in refusing to allow impeachment testimony, but did err in failing to assess points for victim injury during sentencing.
• Pagano v. Pagano
  665 So. 2d 370· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-01-03 ·cited 18×
  In a dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's failure to recognize appreciation in the husband's family business interest as a marital asset. The court held that where a spouse contributes marital labor to enhance the value of a closely held fa
• Heide M. Hess Jones v. Jones
  633 So. 2d 1096· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-02-11 ·cited 18×
  A German national mother sought to relocate her five-year-old son to Germany after a Florida divorce, but the trial court enjoined the move, holding that permanent relocation was not in the child's best interests under the six-factor Hill test. The appellate court affirmed, findi
• Kalvin Denny v. State
  617 So. 2d 323· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-03-10 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial, refusing to suppress the confession as fruit of illegal arrest, or refusing to suppress the second statement for Miranda violations, and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit codefenda
• United States v. Parris Raymond Jefferson
  974 F.2d 201· D.C. Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a jury could not reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed his weapon for the purpose of protecting his drug possession activity.
• Ibrahim Fez Ghassan v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  972 F.2d 631· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion in denying an alien's application for a waiver of deportation and in denying his motions to reconsider or reopen deportation proceedings.
• United States v. Whalen
  940 F.2d 1027· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-14 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the government's use of the defendant's post-arrest voluntary statements was permissible impeachment, not a violation of Doyle v. Ohio, and that the exclusion of certain evidence and expert testimony was within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Yasmin Allibhai and Sultan Allibhai
  939 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no error in the targeting of the appellants, the exclusion of expert testimony, the jury instructions, or the application of sentencing guidelines.
• Rojas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  937 F.2d 186· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-02 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum and withholding of deportation for all petitioners, finding their claims lacked sufficient evidence or did not meet the required legal standards.
• Greeley v. Greeley
  583 So. 2d 1078· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-07-12 ·cited 18×
  The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a final judgment dissolving a marriage, finding the alimony award to the former wife to be unreasonable.
• Vargas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  938 F.2d 358· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 18×
  The BIA's denial of the motion to reopen was arbitrary and capricious because it improperly extended the holding of Matter of Lok and failed to provide adequate reasoning or adhere to its own regulations.
• Short v. Short
  577 So. 2d 723· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-04-12 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Perkins
  929 F.2d 436· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines to impose an 84-month sentence.
• Simms T. Normand v. The Research Inst. OF Am., Inc.
  927 F.2d 857· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of age discrimination and that the plaintiff mitigated his damages, but not that the violation was willful.
• United States v. Lonedog
  929 F.2d 568· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-02 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its rulings on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and that any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Culver
  929 F.2d 389· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence, inflammatory remarks, and sentencing decisions were not erroneous, affirming the conviction and sentence.
• United States v. Parcel OF Land With Bldg.
  928 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the claimant's motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), and affirmed the forfeiture.
• Rizzo v. Caterpillar, Inc.
  914 F.2d 1003· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a material question of fact exists regarding the preparation of the retirement benefits offer packet, precluding summary judgment, and that the standard of review for benefit denials is 'arbitrary and capricious'.
• Jones v. U.S. Bureau OF Prisons
  903 F.2d 1178· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the substantive decisions of the Parole Commission to grant or deny parole, and that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief because he eventually received a parole hearing, despite the delay.
• Robinson v. State
  561 So. 2d 419· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-05-14 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The First District Court of Appeal reversed Robinson's cocaine sale conviction because the trial judge abused her discretion by denying his motion for continuance when a crucial defense witness failed to appear despite being properly subpoenaed. The court held that where a defend
• Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Corp. t/d/b/a Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  899 F.2d 1350· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the attorney's recusal motion was properly denied, but the sanctions order against him must be vacated and remanded due to insufficient notice and failure to differentiate between Rule 11 and § 1927 standards.
• M.A. [ Axxxxxxxx ] v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  899 F.2d 304· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that the court should review the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) determination of prima facie eligibility de novo, not with deference, because it involves a legal interpretation rather than a factual finding. The judge also contends that the BIA ap
• John v. Honorable Michael J. Barron
  897 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that appellate jurisdiction for Rule 11 sanctions is lacking if the amount of fees is not determined, that judicial immunity shields a state judge from damages for acts within jurisdiction, and that appeals with perfunctory briefs are dismissed.
• Carroll v. Otis Elevator Co.
  896 F.2d 210· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an experimental psychologist as an expert witness. The witness's testimony assisted the trier of fact regarding the design of an escalator's emergency stop button.
• Thais Carriere v. Sears
  893 F.2d 98· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to remand, refusing a discovery continuance, or granting summary judgment, as the nondiverse defendants were fraudulently joined and no duty was owed to the victim.
• United States v. Tibesar
  894 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings on discovery, jury selection, or sentencing.
• Geitz v. Lindsey
  893 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited evidence of the plaintiff's pending charges and prior convictions to show the defendants' state of mind and the reasonableness of their actions.
• Wilson v. Merrell DOW Pharms. Inc.
  893 F.2d 1149· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give a missing witness instruction, admitting sales charts as the basis for expert testimony, or denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
• Wash. Hosp. & S. Hills Health Sys. & All Saints Hosp. & Lock Haven Hosp. & Andrew Kaul Mem'l Hosp. (Intervenor in D.C.) v. White
  889 F.2d 1294· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the 1983 stipulation is ambiguous regarding whether it 'grandfathered' a 'new construction' exception to Medicaid reimbursement regulations, requiring remand for factual determination of the parties' intent.
• United States v. Blanton
  884 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of circumstantial evidence (Government Exhibits 5 and 6) was proper as it was relevant to the identity and weight of the drugs in question and not unduly prejudicial, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendants.
• Kazimierz S. BAL v. A.D. Moyer
  883 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying the Achacoso-Sanchez standard of review to the denial of a stay of deportation, and that summary judgment was appropriate despite disputed medical evidence.
• Dowling v. State
  545 So. 2d 521· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-07-06 ·cited 18×
  Appeals from orders denying Rule 3.800(a) motions must comply with standard appellate procedures, including filing records and briefs under Rules 9.200 and 9.210, not the summary procedure of Rule 9.140(g) applicable to Rule 3.850 appeals. The standard of review is whether the tr
• Danik, Inc. v. Hartmarx Corp.
  875 F.2d 890· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-19 ·cited 18×
  A district court retains jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even after a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses their action, and the court's determination of the reasonableness of the pre-filing inquiry and the amount of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Oakes v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
  546 So. 2d 427· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-04 ·cited 18×
  In this asbestos exposure case, a jury awarded $2.5 million to John Oakes for severe asbestos-related injuries and $175,000 to his wife. The trial court ordered a remittitur of $1.14 million and conditionally granted a new trial on damages. The appellate court reversed, holding t