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

• Panhandle Coop. Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency
  771 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the EPA's penalty assessment, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion, and rejected the argument that a two-and-a-half-year delay in the administrative appeal violated statutory or regulatory requirements.
• United States v. Laurence John Layton
  767 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 'Last Hour Tape' under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, as its probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.
• United States v. Bettie L. Zima
  766 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a magistrate did not abuse his discretion by denying a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a judgment, as the judgment was not void because the magistrate had the power to determine ancillary issues even after the federal claim was dismissed.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster Near NEW Orleans v. Turgeau
  764 F.2d 1084· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-26 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that Darryl Turgeau's award for mental anguish and the award for living expenses were not supported by Louisiana law and were reversed, while Dolores Turgeau's mental anguish award was affirmed.
• Kreimes v. Dep't OF Treas.
  764 F.2d 1186· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-18 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the magistrate's finding that the government's position was not substantially justified is clearly erroneous, making the award of attorney's fees improper.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic Airlines
  761 F.2d 1386· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the union did not waive its right to compel arbitration and that the district court abused its discretion in conditioning the filing of an amended complaint on the payment of attorney's fees.
• Grogan v. Gen. Maint. Serv. Co.
  763 F.2d 444· D.C. Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 16×
  The jury's verdict for the maintenance company on the tort claim is affirmed, but the owner is entitled to litigate its contract-based indemnity cross-claim against the maintenance company.
• Trakas v. Quality Brands, Inc.
  759 F.2d 185· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in overturning the trial court's dismissal, arguing the trial judge acted within her discretion.
• King v. Wells
  760 F.2d 89· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Attorney'S Fees
  The court held that a prison official's policy of automatically excluding inmate witness testimony violates due process, and that a reduction in attorney fees for duplication of services was an abuse of discretion when only one attorney was employed.
• Elinor R. Bacon v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  757 F.2d 265· Fed. Cir.· 1985-03-15 ·cited 16×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the agency's stated reason for the reduction-in-force (RIF), 'workload and skills imbalances,' was a proper basis under the applicable regulation, and that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) did not err in its decision.
• United States v. Yair Holtzman
  762 F.2d 720· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an injunction against otherwise lawful activity must be limited in time and scope, and that an unlimited injunction against lawful activity is prospectively inequitable and should be vacated. The court also held that ambiguous injunctions should be resolved in
• State v. Rice
  464 So. 2d 684· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-03-07 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The State appealed a trial court's downward departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines for a second-degree murder conviction, but the appellate court affirmed the sentence.
• Hubbard v. White
  755 F.2d 692· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in denying a change of venue, refusing to allow impeachment testimony, or denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Carraway Methodist Med. Ctr. v. Heckler
  753 F.2d 1006· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary's interpretation of the regulation, requiring comparison of an intermediate care unit's services to other special care units within the same hospital, was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
• Farouk and Fadwa Sankar v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  757 F.2d 532· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion by applying the 'clear probability' standard to the Sankars' asylum claim, as this standard is equivalent to the 'well-founded fear' standard.
• NEW York Petroleum Corp. v. Ashland OIL, Inc.
  757 F.2d 288· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1985-01-22 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend to add a counterclaim due to undue delay and prejudice, and that the action against the DOE was barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies and res judicata.
• In re Chung King, Inc.
  753 F.2d 547· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court abuses its discretion by vacating a confirmed sale based solely on a slightly higher subsequent offer or a minor mistake, such as unpaid back taxes, without compelling equities or fundamental errors.
• Mitchell v. Cuomo
  748 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Eighth Amendment violations.
• Cortina v. Leda M. Cortina
  461 So. 2d 964· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-11-13 ·cited 16×
• The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. C.E. Viele
  459 So. 2d 354· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-10-31 ·cited 16×
  A condemning authority's decision on property necessity will not be overruled if it acted legally, in good faith, and did not abuse its discretion. The trial court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard and substituting its judgment for the condemning authority's.
• Humphrey v. United States & the Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  745 F.2d 1166· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision to grant Greyhound permission to discontinue bus service on three routes was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
• Monarch Cruise Line, Inc. v. Leisure Time Tours, Inc.
  456 So. 2d 1278· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-10-02 ·cited 16×
  Monarch Cruise Line appeals a trial court's order granting a rehearing to Leisure Time Tours and Leisure Time Travel following a non-jury trial. The court granted the rehearing after the parties conducted a bifurcated trial as stipulated, but the trial court then announced it wou
• David D. Daly, M.D. v. Charles C. Sprague, M.D.
  742 F.2d 896· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in implicitly denying the motion to supplement the complaint, as the supplemental claims were outside the scope of the limited remand and precluded by the law of the case doctrine.
• City OF Angels Broad., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  745 F.2d 656· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FCC's 1973 order was final, and therefore a new proceeding was required to consider new applicants for the broadcast license.
• Earnhardt v. The Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO
  744 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the evidence supported the conclusion of discriminatory discharge and that the denial of prejudgment interest and fringe benefits was not an abuse of discretion.
• Ramon-Sepulveda v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  743 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in affirming the immigration judge's decision to reopen deportation proceedings because the reopening violated the plain language of the INS's own regulation requiring evidence to be unavailable or undisco
• Eximco, Inc. v. The Trane Co. & Shepherd Sales & Serv., Inc.
  737 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence presented by Eximco was insufficient to raise a jury-triable issue on its Robinson-Patman Act claims, and thus a directed verdict for the defendant was proper.
• Kollsman v. City OF LOS Angeles
  737 F.2d 830· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding state law claims concerning land use planning regulations, as these issues were complex, uncertain, and sensitive areas of social policy best left to state courts.
• Mohammad Ebrahim Riasati v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  738 F.2d 1115· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's motions to reopen deportation proceedings.
• Bradley Bank v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  737 F.2d 657· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for losses from uncollected funds was unambiguous, requiring the depositor's physical presence at the bank for the exception to apply, and that the newly discovered evidence would not likely change the result.
• Farkas v. Karin Farkas
  452 So. 2d 963· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-06-12 ·cited 16×
  In this dissolution of marriage case involving a 24-year marriage, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's asset distribution, finding the award of 90% of marital assets to the wife constituted an abuse of discretion. The court held that inherited funds an
• United States v. Weisman
  736 F.2d 421· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury's exposure to a newspaper article and a judge's remarks from another proceeding did not create a reasonable possibility of prejudice, and thus did not warrant a mistrial or new trial.
• The Natural Kitchen, Inc. v. Am. Transworld Corp.
  449 So. 2d 855· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-04-13 ·cited 16×
  Natural Kitchen sued Transworld Corporation, which had become the building's lessor, for unreasonably refusing to consent to the assignment of a commercial restaurant lease. The jury awarded damages, but the trial court granted a new trial on both liability and damages grounds. T
• Villela v. Dep't OF THE AIR Force
  727 F.2d 1574· Fed. Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the MSPB erred in finding the agency proved the appropriateness of the penalty without considering mitigating factors.
• Walsh v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  726 F.2d 956· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of the class action settlement, finding no abuse of discretion regarding notice, counsel, or the fairness determination.
• United States v. Jones
  722 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct specific voir dire questioning on the defense of coercion, as no reasonable possibility of prejudice was shown.
• Ciba-Geigy Pharms. Div. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  722 F.2d 1120· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to defer to an arbitrator's decision that was repugnant to the National Labor Relations Act, and that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an unfair labor practice.
• Peacock v. The Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs OF the City OF Indianapolis
  721 F.2d 210· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a prior dismissal was not an abuse of discretion because the grounds presented did not meet the requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6).
• United States v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  719 F.2d 558· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that MCI was properly allowed to intervene, but the district court erred in applying a 'public interest' standard instead of the specific standard in Part XI of the consent decree and in failing to devise a reasonable phase-out period.
• Peake v. The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Marquette
  717 F.2d 1016· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the underlying judgment because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Mrs. Polly Glass v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  714 F.2d 1107· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The appeal must be dismissed because the notice of appeal was not timely filed after the denial of an untimely motion to amend the judgment.
• United States v. Ainesworth
  716 F.2d 769· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its conduct of voir dire, prosecutor's closing argument, or sentencing by excising portions of the presentence report.
• Pardee v. Stock
  712 F.2d 1290· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's case with prejudice for failing to attend a hearing, as there was no clear pattern of contumacious conduct.
• United States v. Williams
  711 F.2d 748· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 16×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying severance, the speedy trial right was not violated, and the admission of grand jury testimony did not affect substantial rights.
• Kirchberg v. Feenstra
  708 F.2d 991· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to a prevailing plaintiff, even if the claim was not initially pleaded under § 1983.
• Kiu Young BAE v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  706 F.2d 866· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings, as the regulation cited was inapplicable to his situation.
• Gulf OIL Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  706 F.2d 444· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Commission legally erred in its definition and application of force majeure within a warranty contract and that Gulf did not sufficiently demonstrate due diligence to excuse nonperformance.
• United States v. Marrero
  705 F.2d 652· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a continuance based on the unavailability of essential witnesses who refused to testify despite grants of immunity, as this delay is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
• Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd.
  702 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-30 ·cited 16×
  The court should have vacated the district court's order again and remanded with directions to limit relief to an appropriate remedy, as the district court failed to comply with the prior mandate.
• Debose v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  700 F.2d 1262· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 16×
  An agency may proceed with termination under 5 U.S.C. § 7513 for unacceptable performance even without a formal performance appraisal system, provided it meets the higher burden of proof required by that section. The admission of altered documentary evidence and secondary evidenc