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

• Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc.
  864 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the dismissal of Active's claims due to an arbitration clause was proper, the transfer of venue was not an abuse of discretion, the Sparlings' fraud claims were properly dismissed for failure to plead with particularity, the Sparlings lacked standing to assert
• Witcher v. Petty
  534 So. 2d 1240· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-12-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in increasing child support and interpreting the settlement agreement, but the increase should have been retroactive to the filing of the modification petition.
• In re LO KA Chun v. LO TO
  858 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to determine the discoverability of evidence under foreign law before issuing subpoenas under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a).
• United States v. Jeraldine J. KEY
  859 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for bankruptcy fraud and concealment, and that the jury instructions, including the forgery instruction and the handling of extraneous juror information, were not reversible error.
• United States v. BNS Inc.
  858 F.2d 456· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Harrod
  856 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar acts is admissible to prove intent and knowledge in specific intent crimes, even if the defendant does not explicitly dispute intent, provided the evidence meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
• Anilina Fabrique de Colorants v. Aakash Chems. & Dyestuffs, Inc.
  856 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 18×
  The district judge did not exceed her authority in granting a default judgment and refusing to set it aside, and the appellate court should not reverse such a decision.
• Fahrenz v. The Meadow Farm P'ship
  850 F.2d 207· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions against the attorneys and in determining the amount of the sanction.
• United States v. Lail
  846 F.2d 1299· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of an extrinsic bank robbery was improperly admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) because the dissimilarities between the crimes did not establish a modus operandi for identity purposes. The error was not harmless.
• McNEILAB, Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  848 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting survey evidence and presuming irreparable harm in a false comparative advertising case under the Lanham Act.
• First Pac. Bancorp, Inc. v. BRO
  847 F.2d 542· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that the appellants failed to allege sufficient predicate acts for a RICO claim and failed to demonstrate actual damages, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Patty Precision Prods. Co. v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co.
  846 F.2d 1247· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 18×
  A manufacturer's warranty disclaimer is ineffective against a subsequent buyer if the manufacturer had extensive dealings with that buyer and failed to communicate the disclaimer.
• Interdevco, Inc. v. Brickellbanc Sav. Ass'n & Hollywood Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  524 So. 2d 1087· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-05-03 ·cited 18×
  Interdevco appealed the appointment of a receiver for the Grove Square construction project, which was 99.9% complete. The court affirmed the appointment of a receiver to complete construction but reversed the receiver's authority to market and sell the property after completion,
• United States v. Kirk
  844 F.2d 660· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of certain trial transcripts was harmless error and that the government sufficiently proved the elements of the RICO charge. The conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Jerard J. Signori
  844 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, nor was the restitution order invalid.
• N. Cent. Ill. Laborers' Dist. Council v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co., Inc.
  842 F.2d 164· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment, as the defendant's failure to respond was due to excusable neglect and they had not made a sufficient appearance to require notice under Rule 55(b)(2).
• Jett v. Sunderman
  840 F.2d 1487· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-03 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that summary judgment for Union Bank on all claims was proper, but summary judgment for National Union on the Rule 10b-5 claim was inappropriate, requiring remand.
• In re Probasco v. Eads
  839 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the physical condition and subdivision activity of the property provided constructive notice of Probasco's interest, preventing the debtor in possession from avoiding that interest under the strong arm clause. The court also held that the bankruptcy court did
• United States v. McFARLAND
  839 F.2d 1239· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• In re Akros Installations, Inc. v. Grand Nat'l Bank
  834 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Rule 11 sanctions were improperly imposed on an appeal from bankruptcy court, but sanctions could be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court's inherent power for vexatious litigation. The court also awarded costs and damages under Rule 38 for a frivolous a
• United States v. Jackson
  836 F.2d 324· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Miranda warnings are not required in bankruptcy proceedings and that false statements regarding the location of collateral are material even if a subsequent security agreement is alleged.
• Hicks v. Mickelson
  835 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire, excluding evidence of a post-divorce business sale, or in its other rulings, affirming the judgment.
• M.G.K. P'rs v. Cavallo
  515 So. 2d 368· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-11-12 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Injunctions
  M.G.K. Partners appeals the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction preventing it from leasing space in its shopping center to Domino's Pizza, based on a non-competition clause in the existing Stage Deli lease. The court affirmed, finding no clear abuse of discreti
• McNEIL v. Lowney
  831 F.2d 1368· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the inmate's motions for appointment of counsel and for the issuance of subpoenas to compel physician testimony.
• United States v. DAY
  830 F.2d 1099· 10th Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial because the brief, casual conversation between an FBI agent and a juror did not create prejudice, and the presumption of prejudice was rebutted by the agent's testimony.
• Magnus Elecs., Inc. v. LA Republica Argentina
  830 F.2d 1396· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 18×
  Res judicata bars the current suit because it involves the same cause of action and parties as a prior suit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the additional allegations were available previously. Rule 11 sanctions are reversed and remanded for reconsideration
• Sherry Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Towel King OF Fla., Inc.
  822 F.2d 1031· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 18×
  The court vacated the district court's attorney's fees award because the basis for the decision was unclear and remanded for clarification.
• Black LAW Enf't Officers Ass'n v. The City OF Akron
  824 F.2d 475· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction allowing temporary promotions based on a revised ranking, but erred in using the statute of limitations to bar evidence of past discriminatory actions.
• Gamber v. Bowen
  823 F.2d 242· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the government's position was not substantially justified, entitling the claimant to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• Arline M. Soderbeck v. Burnett Cnty.
  821 F.2d 446· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the county is not liable for the sheriff's actions because the sheriff is considered a state officer under Wisconsin law, not a county policymaker, and prior rulings established this precedent.
• Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  820 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape demonstration and evidence of other accidents, but that the punitive damages award was excessive and required a remittitur or a new trial.
• Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.
  819 F.2d 1120· Fed. Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the patent claims were not invalid and were infringed, but that the infringement was not willful.
• Hogan v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  812 F.2d 409· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the exclusion of Hogan's proffered evidence of prior acts, even if erroneous, did not affect her substantial rights, and any error in admitting AT&T's opinion testimony was harmless.
• Coates v. Bechtel
  811 F.2d 1045· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant because the plaintiffs' civil rights action was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless at the time it was filed.
• Passarella v. Hilton Int'l Co.
  810 F.2d 674· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the majority improperly substituted its judgment for the district court's reasonable conclusion regarding excusable neglect under Rule 60(b).
• The Parents' Ass'n OF P.S. 16 v. Quinones
  803 F.2d 1235· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as the City's plan to accommodate Hasidic students likely violated the Establishment Clause's 'primary effect' test.
• Smith v. Smith
  495 So. 2d 229· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-09-24 ·cited 18×
  In this Florida dissolution of marriage case, the husband appealed a final judgment that awarded the wife primary custody, exclusive possession of the home, child support, rehabilitative alimony, and required the husband to pay half of the wife's attorney's fees. The court affirm
• Black Grievance Comm. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
  802 F.2d 648· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in reducing undisputed hourly rates, in its methodology for applying lodestar adjustments, and in its calculation of the fee petition award and expert costs, requiring remand for recalculation.
• Mabra Huff v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  799 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the original dismissal order due to an untimely notice of appeal, but it had jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion for reconsideration and affirmed that denial.
• Valley Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF Nev.
  798 F.2d 1289· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the common law right of access to judicial records creates a strong presumption in favor of allowing the media to copy audio and video exhibits, which can only be overcome by articulable facts, not conjecture.
• Maldonado v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co.
  798 F.2d 764· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding drawbar misalignment was not erroneous because the defendant failed to produce evidence supporting a defense based on such misalignment. The court also affirmed the denial of a new trial based on juror testimony and improper clos
• Solis v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  796 F.2d 330· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) correctly applied the legal standards for asylum and withholding of deportation and that its decision was supported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. Donaldson
  797 F.2d 125· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a) authorizes a separate assessment for each offense of conviction, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a request for an extended payment period for these assessments.
• Cosgrove v. Madelaine Mackoul Cosgrove
  491 So. 2d 1219· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-07-22 ·cited 18×
  In this appeal of a dissolution of marriage judgment, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife in the amount of $1,500 per month, applying the stringent abuse-of-discretion standard established in Canakaris v.
• Gehl Co. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  795 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 18×
  Treasury Regulation § 1.993-2(d)(2) is valid, but it cannot be applied retroactively to Gehl's taxable years 1976 and 1977.
• United States v. Hull
  792 F.2d 941· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's sentence was not imposed in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights and that the denial of a continuance to substitute counsel was not an abuse of discretion.
• Price v. Andrew "Duke" McGLATHERY, Jr.
  792 F.2d 472· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 18×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case due to the plaintiff's attorney's repeated failure to comply with court orders and failure to appear at a scheduled conference.
• Sheriff OF Monroe Cnty. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Alfonso J. Madoz
  490 So. 2d 961· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-05-13 ·cited 18×
  When case law on the burden of proof in misconduct cases was unclear and the employer was affirmatively misled by the appeals office's own pamphlet about who bears that burden, the appeals referee abused her discretion in denying the employer's request for a continuance.
• In re Design Classics, Inc. v. Westphal
  788 F.2d 1384· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion, and thus affirmed the district court's decision.
• Golden v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n
  786 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal court may enjoin a state court action under the relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act if the issues have been fairly and fully litigated in federal court and the state action threatens to relitigate those issues.