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. Meyers
  952 F.2d 914· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a prior felony conviction for impeachment, that prosecutorial statements did not constitute plain error, and that the procedural requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) did not apply to a sentence enha
• United States v. Boshell
  952 F.2d 1101· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings on Jencks Act and Brady material disclosure, but vacated and remanded the sentence for the district court to articulate specific reasons for its downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.
• Irwin v. Blake
  589 So. 2d 973· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-11-13 ·cited 16×
  Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's discretionary ruling on expert testimony but reversed the exclusion of arguments regarding reasonableness of medical bills, holding that juries must decide whether medical expenses are reasonable and necessary.
• Ayala-Chavez v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  944 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not err in applying a heightened 'outstanding equities' standard to an alien convicted of a serious drug offense when considering discretionary relief from deportation, and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
• United States v. Knorr
  942 F.2d 1217· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, denying his motion for a continuance, or refusing to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
• Temkin v. Frederick Cnty. Comm'rs
  945 F.2d 716· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the deputy sheriff's conduct during a high-speed chase did not "shock the conscience" and thus did not violate substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consequently, the county commissioners were also not liable for failure to adopt adequate policies.
• United States v. HUX
  940 F.2d 314· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the defendant's modified descrambler, designed solely for unauthorized access to satellite programming, falls within the prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 2512(1)(b).
• Askegard v. Askegard
  584 So. 2d 47· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-07-11 ·cited 16×
  In this alimony appeal, the husband challenges the trial court's order on remand awarding his former wife permanent periodic alimony retroactive to the 1986 divorce decree, requiring life insurance security, and mandating payment of her attorney's fees. The appellate court revers
• United States v. Egbert Richardson
  939 F.2d 135· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant's sentence may be based on reasonably foreseeable conduct of co-conspirators, but not on negotiated drug amounts if the defendant was not reasonably capable of producing them. A district court's refusal to grant a downward departure based on a gove
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Valente
  933 F.2d 921· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on the issue of liability because the great weight of the evidence indicated the fire was incendiary, despite the jury's verdict to the contrary.
• Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert
  934 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the tribe's motion for a preliminary injunction, as the tribe failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Arvil Hall v. Shipley
  932 F.2d 1147· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the unannounced, forced entry into the apartment because the right was not clearly established in the circuit under the circumstances. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the claim that
• Stephen Rindley, D.D.S. v. Gallagher
  929 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the lawsuit based on Pullman and Burford abstention doctrines, as there were no unsettled questions of state law that would avoid the federal constitutional issues, nor would federal review disrupt state regulatory effort
• In re Kolstad v. Kolstad
  928 F.2d 171· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 16×
  The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the IRS to amend a debtor-filed proof of claim, even after the bar date, because the amendment did not assert a new claim and the debtor could not unilaterally control the claim amount.
• Media Duplication Servs., Ltd. v. HDG Software, Inc.
  928 F.2d 1228· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that service of process was insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii) without acknowledgment, and diversity jurisdiction was not established due to insufficient proof of principal place of business. Sanctions against counsel were procedurally and substantively
• Branum v. Clark
  927 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment because the plaintiff was prejudiced by the advancement of the hearing date without adequate notice and the court failed to consider this prejudice.
• A. Kush & Assocs. v. Am. States Ins. Co.
  927 F.2d 929· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the jury's award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, finding that the insurer's actions did not constitute an unjustifiable refusal to defend and that certain additional damages claims were not recoverable.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Centennial Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Gemini Mgmt.
  921 F.2d 241· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 16×
  The D'Oench doctrine applies to bar counterclaims and defenses based on an alleged oral agreement to lend the full amount when that agreement is not clearly and explicitly reflected in the bank's records.
• United States v. Upshaw
  918 F.2d 789· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings regarding drug quantity and did not abuse its discretion in denying oral argument or testimony, but did err by failing to state reasons for imposing a sentence within the guidelines range.
• United States v. Harmon
  918 F.2d 115· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a cooperating witness and evidence of prior drug transportation, as the jury was properly instructed to assess credibility and the probative value outweighed prejudice.
• de Jesus v. Banco Popular de Puerto RICO
  918 F.2d 232· 1st Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a prevailing plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under the Truth in Lending Act solely because the jury awarded a "generous" amount.
• United States v. Quinn Hickey
  917 F.2d 901· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to impose a fine, as the defendant failed to prove an inability to pay. The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. ONE 1985 Chevrolet Corvette
  914 F.2d 804· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government's position in the forfeiture action was substantially justified, thus precluding an award of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• THE Post Off. v. Portec, Inc.
  913 F.2d 802· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that defendant waived several issues by failing to object at trial, affirmed the constitutionality of the Colorado punitive damages statute, but reduced the punitive damages award due to excessiveness, and affirmed the award of attorney fees under the Lanham Act.
• United States v. Williams
  900 F.2d 823· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that extrinsic evidence of prior similar mailings is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge and intent, provided it passes the Beechum test and is accompanied by proper jury instructions.
• United States v. Gayou
  901 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the grounds for departure from the sentencing guidelines were proper, the district court failed to adequately explain the extent of the departure, requiring vacation of the sentence.
• Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecomms. Grp.
  900 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Preliminary Injunctions
  The court held that the district court erred in basing a preliminary injunction on a finding of 'secondary meaning in the making,' as this doctrine is not recognized under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and the evidence was insufficient to establish actual secondary meaning.
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Seafirst Corp.
  891 F.2d 762· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 16×
  A district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to vacate a judgment after settlement, especially when third-party interests are involved and the settlement appears motivated by a desire to avoid preclusive effects on other litigation.
• Haynes v. United States
  891 F.2d 235· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Interior has discretion to limit land allocation under ANCSA to less than 160 acres when the land is part of a National Wildlife Reserve, and this interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference.
• United States v. Vizcarra-Porras
  889 F.2d 1435· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity and compel testimony, nor did it err in its evidentiary rulings or find reversible error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
• Schering Corp. & Key Pharms., Inc. v. Vitarine Pharms., Inc.
  889 F.2d 490· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions after a voluntary dismissal, but reversed the imposition of sanctions because the plaintiffs' assertions of health risks were adequately grounded in fact at the time of filing.
• United States v. Mazzanti
  888 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
• Rosenburg v. Lincoln Am. Life Ins. Co.
  883 F.2d 1328· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the insurance company waived policy conditions through its agents' conduct and that its denial of the claim was unreasonable and vexatious.
• United States v. Nedza
  880 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for extortion and racketeering, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.
• Thompson v. Tobitha Thompson
  546 So. 2d 99· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-07-07 ·cited 16×
  In this marriage dissolution appeal, the former husband challenges the trial court's property distribution, permanent alimony, and attorney's fees awards. The court affirms, holding that the trial court's economic scheme was reasonable under established Florida law and that the f
• Islamic Ctr. OF Miss., Inc. v. City OF Starkville
  876 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes that a particular attorney's customary billing rate should not be presumptively the appropriate hourly lodestar rate, requiring specific justification for deviations.
• Int'l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc.
  875 F.2d 388· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the attorney's jurisdictional theory was plausible and supported by authority, and therefore the Rule 11 sanction was too harsh.
• McGEORGE v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  871 F.2d 952· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal from the District of Columbia court's orders and affirmed the Oklahoma court's dismissal of the battery claim and denial of the motion to amend.
• G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph OAT Corp.
  871 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the magistrate abused his discretion by demanding an executive with full settlement authority attend a pretrial conference, as no rule or doctrine imposes a duty to bargain in good faith over settlement.
• Sidell T. Pirus v. Bowen
  869 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the government's position was not substantially justified and in awarding attorney's fees above the statutory cap due to special factors.
• In re Pyramid Energy, Ltd. v. Heyl & Patterson, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1058· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×
  A party is bound by its counsel's actions, and repeated failure to comply with court orders, even due to counsel's dilatory conduct, justifies dismissal with prejudice.
• Tolan v. Levi Strauss & Co.
  867 F.2d 467· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-07 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of age discrimination and willful violation of the ADEA, and that the state law claim for breach of implied covenant was timely.
• White v. Carlucci
  862 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 16×
  A Title VII plaintiff must independently establish a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction, even in cases involving federal employees, and mere reassignment does not constitute irreparable harm.
• United States v. Oppon
  863 F.2d 141· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that 'other acts' evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) even when the defense is a general denial, and that allowing a juror to take notes during trial was not an abuse of discretion.
• Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Tarentum v. Shoreline Garden Townhomes, II, Ltd.
  538 So. 2d 864· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-11-10 ·cited 16×
  Peoples Federal Savings & Loan Association appeals a trial court's deficiency judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action, challenging the court's determination of fair market value for the foreclosed property. The appellate court affirms, finding competent substantial evidence sup
• W. Elec. Co. v. Piezo Tech., Inc.
  860 F.2d 428· Fed. Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 16×
  A patent examiner cannot be compelled to answer deposition questions probing their technical knowledge of prior art, as such questions are inextricably intertwined with their mental processes and disrupt the administrative function of the Patent Office.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc.
  857 F.2d 600· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to explicitly consider less drastic alternatives before dismissing the case, as required by Malone v. United States Postal Service.
• United States v. Phillips
  854 F.2d 273· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by conducting an in camera review of the FBI informant file and providing the defendant with a summary, as this procedure adequately protected the defendant's Brady rights.
• Abel Osarentine Oviawe v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  853 F.2d 1428· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 16×
  The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen deportation proceedings, as it could properly consider prior criminal convictions as an adverse factor even when a judicial recommendation against deportation was made for a differen
• Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez
  853 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a party cannot use Rule 60(b) to evade the consequences of a conscious decision not to appeal, nor can they claim fraud or excusable neglect when they had access to information or were aware of counsel's actions.