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

• Littlejohn v. BIC Corp.
  851 F.2d 673· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 16×
  The court should have affirmed the district court's judgment granting PNI access to trial exhibits.
• Update ART, Inc. v. Modiin Publ'g, Ltd.
  843 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the magistrate did not abuse her discretion in imposing sanctions for discovery violations, that the damages award was not clearly erroneous, and that the copyright claim was cognizable under U.S. law even for infringing newspapers distributed abroad.
• Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel
  851 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the district court had the power to amend its judgment, it abused its discretion by failing to expressly consider the public interest and by not ordering the Secretary to comply with his own regulations regarding tribal consultation and lease planning. T
• Ocean View Towers, Inc. v. First Fid. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  521 So. 2d 325· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-09 ·cited 16×
  Ocean View Towers appealed a foreclosure judgment on a $3.6 million mortgage loan from First Fidelity Savings and Loan Association. Ocean View claimed an oral agreement with a Fidelity officer for an interest reserve modification and alleged Fidelity engaged in unclean hands by a
• United States v. Scartz
  838 F.2d 876· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-08 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its application of the correct legal standard for determining conspiracy membership.
• United States v. DiPAOLO
  835 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for a new trial and a hearing, as the alleged recantation was not credible and the defendants failed to demonstrate due diligence.
• United States v. Warner
  830 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation when the defendant repeatedly failed to file delinquent tax returns and pay court costs, despite numerous opportunities and warnings, and his asserted defenses of Fifth Amendment privilege and
• United States v. West
  828 F.2d 1468· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow the defense to present a key witness, materially prejudicing the defendant.
• Am. Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
  828 F.2d 734· Fed. Cir.· 1987-08-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a patent validity opinion, even if based on publicly available prior art, is not privileged if it relies on non-confidential information gleaned from public records.
• Ortiz v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  852 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the duty to mitigate damages is a question of fact for the jury, and a workers' compensation settlement does not necessarily bar a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
• Brouwers v. Bowen
  823 F.2d 273· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees under the EAJA because the Secretary's position was substantially justified.
• In re the Adoption OF Baby Girl "C" v. K.S.
  511 So. 2d 345· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-07-08 ·cited 16×
  E.H. and B.H. appealed the denial of their post-judgment motions seeking to adopt a child they had custody of for sixteen months after the trial court found the natural mother had validly revoked her adoption consent due to duress. The court affirmed, holding that the natural mot
• Devices FOR Med., Inc. v. Boehl
  822 F.2d 1062· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint after a jury verdict of no damages, and that the appeal was frivolous, warranting sanctions.
• Adkins v. The United States
  816 F.2d 1580· Fed. Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 16×
  The Claims Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs' complaints for failure to prosecute by not responding to interrogatories by court-ordered deadlines.
• Champeau v. Fruehauf Corp.
  814 F.2d 1271· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to judicial misconduct and that the admission of a videotaped experiment was proper.
• United States v. Gerges Soliman
  813 F.2d 277· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a summary chart detailing fraudulent activities was not inadmissible 'other crimes' evidence and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give a limiting instruction.
• United States v. Gorecki
  813 F.2d 40· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the joinder of drug and weapon offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice under Rule 14 to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Peeples
  811 F.2d 849· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the prior indictment without prejudice, and therefore, the subsequent conviction stands.
• Transunion Corp. & Union Indus., Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.
  811 F.2d 127· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-05 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens and the stay of discovery, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
• Cintron v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  813 F.2d 917· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 16×
  A complaint constructively filed with the clerk within the statute of limitations period is considered timely, even if it fails to comply with local rules or has an overpaid filing fee.
• Lamb v. Hoyt L. Lamb
  500 So. 2d 256· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-16 ·cited 16×
• Kathey Marchand Stipelcovich v. Sand Dollar Marine, Inc.
  805 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the settlement agreements severable and in denying the motion to reinstate the original suit.
• EBI, Inc. v. Gator Indus., Inc.
  807 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that sales representatives who merely solicited and forwarded orders, without investment, inventory, or risk, did not qualify as 'dealers' under Puerto Rico's Law 75. The court also affirmed the dismissal of a breach of contract claim and the imposition of sanction
• Wilson v. Donnie Kenneth Wilson
  504 So. 2d 1278· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-03 ·cited 16×
  A mother appeals from a trial court order modifying the original dissolution judgment to change custody of her younger daughter to the father. The First District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the evidence established a substantial change in circumstances and that the cust
• Zalis v. Zalis
  498 So. 2d 505· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-11-12 ·cited 16×
  Wife appealed a final judgment of marriage dissolution, challenging the trial court's distribution of marital assets, alimony and child support awards, and denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of
• Bally Exp. Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd.
  804 F.2d 398· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants transacted business in Illinois, thus submitting to the court's personal jurisdiction under the Illinois long-arm statute, and affirmed the denial of their motion to vacate the default judgment.
• Letizia v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc.
  802 F.2d 1185· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff should have been allowed to amend his complaint to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, and that federal securities claims under Section 10(b) and 17(a) are not arbitrable.
• Robert and Beverly Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc.
  802 F.2d 676· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an order denying a law firm's motion to withdraw as counsel after judgment is an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
• McLEOD v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  802 F.2d 89· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a clear probability of persecution, and that procedural objections did not warrant a remand.
• Mitchell v. State
  493 So. 2d 1058· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-08-07 ·cited 16×
  Mitchell appeals his conviction for armed robbery, challenging the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of firearm use, the denial of his motion for a new trial after the victim recanted his identification, and the trial court's departure
• Darden v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
  797 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The court holds that while appointing counsel for pro se litigants can be a wise judicial administration, it is not a right and should not be used reflexively.
• Eleby v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc.
  795 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, but affirmed the denial because the district court did not plainly abuse its discretion.
• Russel K. Williams v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  795 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the petitioner had already departed the United States under a grant of voluntary departure and lawfully reentered, making effective relief impossible.
• Patricia (McGeachy) Kelly v. Kelly
  491 So. 2d 330· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-07-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in dividing marital property but did err in failing to award the wife attorney's fees.
• Manbourne, Inc. v. Conrad
  796 F.2d 884· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining the issuance of stock to option-holders, as it was part of a scheme to deprive the majority shareholder of control.
• Perry v. Larson
  794 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of political retaliation, improper evidentiary rulings did not deny a fair trial, and damages were properly calculated.
• United States v. Malquist
  791 F.2d 1399· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the defendant's Fifth Amendment claims were not a valid defense to charges of willful failure to file tax returns, and that the district court did not err in its jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or sentencing.
• United States v. Martel
  792 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that evidentiary rulings were not abuses of discretion, prosecutorial conduct was harmless error or waived, and the trial court properly handled jury instructions and questions.
• United States v. Salgado-Hernandez
  790 F.2d 1265· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the magistrate's dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, despite a violation of the Speedy Trial Act's time limits.
• Thor Power Tool Co. v. Monroe Weintraub
  791 F.2d 579· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in adding a new party under Rule 21 during trial, nor in denying the plaintiff's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, as the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and the court acted within
• Harris v. D.J. McCARTHY
  790 F.2d 753· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding partial attorney's fees, affirming the decision regarding the amount and scope of the award.
• United States v. Delmer E. DAY (84-5797
  789 F.2d 1217· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that a pretrial recorded statement, even if sworn, is inadmissible as substantive evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) if it was not given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury or in a formal proceeding, and its admission constitutes prejudicial error unl
• Mayo v. Tri-Bell Indus., Inc.
  787 F.2d 1007· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings
  The court held that the Texas modified comparative negligence statute applies to nonpecuniary damages in wrongful death claims, barring recovery when the deceased's negligence exceeds that of the tortfeasor. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
• Page v. Schweiker
  786 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 16×
  The court should have reached the merits of the standing issue and concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the cross-program recoupment provision.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Brathwaite
  782 F.2d 399· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that coconspirator statements were admissible and the evidence was sufficient for conviction, but vacated sentences imposed under both U.S. and Virgin Islands statutes due to double jeopardy concerns, remanding for resentencing.
• Cellular Mobile Sys. OF Pa., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  782 F.2d 182· D.C. Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FCC's expedited procedures, comparative criteria, and ultimate license award were lawful, not arbitrary, and supported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. Scarborough
  777 F.2d 175· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its determination of dangerous special offender status was not an abuse of discretion.
• Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co. Vessel
  773 F.2d 610· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, and the court properly decided the maintenance and cure claim.
• Power Lift, Inc. v. Lang Tools, Inc.
  774 F.2d 478· Fed. Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 16×
  A corporate officer can be held liable for inducing his corporation's patent infringement, and continuing production after notice of a patent constitutes willful infringement.
• United States v. Dick
  773 F.2d 937· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 16×
  A district court cannot revoke a defendant's probation for an event that occurred before the commencement of the probationary term, unless the defendant perpetrated a fraud on the court at sentencing by intentionally withholding crucial information.