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

• Hill v. State
  921 So. 2d 579· Fla.· 2006-01-17 ·cited 71×
  Clarence Hill, a death row inmate with an active death warrant, appealed the denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief filed shortly before his scheduled execution. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of all six claims, holding that they we
• Overbey v. Overbey
  698 So. 2d 811· Fla.· 1997-06-05 ·cited 71×·via Reasonableness Test For Abuse Of Discretion
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a noncustodial parent's voluntary decision to attend law school and reduce income may justify a downward modification of child support only if the modification serves the best interests of the children. The Court reversed the district court's r
• United States v. Smith
  918 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 71×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in venue decisions, entrapment defenses, severance denials, or prosecutorial remarks.
• Hank R. McWHORTER v. City OF Birmingham
  906 F.2d 674· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to improper closing arguments, denying the recusal motion, or excluding witness testimony.
• Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc.
  788 F.2d 151· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court's denial of attorney fees without explanation was an abuse of discretion, requiring a remand for further consideration. It also clarified the standards for awarding fees under the Copyright Act and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
• Shihshu Walter WEI v. State OF Haw.
  763 F.2d 370· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 71×
  The court held that counsel's inadvertence in failing to calendar the service deadline does not constitute good cause for extending the time for service under Rule 4(j).
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  595 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-21 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing preliminary injunctions to preserve the status quo pending appeal of a state court judgment, as federal jurisdiction was proper and abstention doctrines did not apply.
• Lawrence v. State
  846 So. 2d 440· Fla.· 2003-03-20 ·cited 70×
  Jonathan Huey Lawrence was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of Jennifer Robinson. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence, rejecting challenges to the trial court's sentencing findings and the proportionality of the capital penalty.
• Lenard James Philmore v. State
  820 So. 2d 919· Fla.· 2002-05-30 ·cited 70×
  Lenard James Philmore was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the November 14, 1997 killing of Kazue Perron during a carjacking and robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, rejecting challenges to his statements, jury
• United States v. Hamblin
  911 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the mandatory sentencing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) apply to multiple offenses in a single indictment and that its prior ruling on this matter is binding precedent. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of § 924(c) and rejected claims of ineffect
• United States v. Lara
  905 F.2d 599· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-30 ·cited 70×
  The court held that extreme vulnerability of a defendant to prison victimization, due to personal characteristics not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission, is a proper ground for a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines range.
• United States v. Hernandez
  896 F.2d 513· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 70×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Giral of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, but sufficient for Bauta and Hernandez. The admission of prior convictions under Rule 404(b) was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Morales
  868 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the initial joinder of defendants in the indictment was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the denial of severance motions under Rule 14 was not an abuse of discretion, as no compelling prejudice was demonstrated.
• Denis Rety v. Green
  546 So. 2d 410· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-02-14 ·cited 70×
  In this defamation appeal, the court upheld most of a trial judge's remittitur order reducing an extraordinarily high jury verdict of $22.5 million to $3.05 million, but partially reversed the remittitur by increasing the punitive damages against the individual defendant from $50
• Trees v. K-Mart Corp.
  467 So. 2d 401· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-03-27 ·cited 70×
  Vicki Trees, a 17-year-old K-Mart cashier, appealed a false arrest and malicious prosecution suit after a jury verdict in the defendants' favor. The central issue was whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of Trees' prior shoplifting incident to rebut her damages clai
• Jung Ja Malandris v. Merrill Lynch
  703 F.2d 1152· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge believes the compensatory damages are excessive and a new trial is required, disagreeing with the majority's remittitur on punitive damages.
• United States v. Michaelson
  552 F.2d 472· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-31 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, and that the plea was taken in substantial compliance with Rule 11.
• United States v. Jenkins
  496 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-05 ·cited 70×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court affirmed convictions for Jenkins, Hall, and Wilcox, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in denying severance. The conviction for Morrow was remanded for correction of sentencing form.
• Douglas v. Beneficial Fin. Co. OF Anchorage
  469 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-07 ·cited 70×
  The court held that a confession of judgment clause in a promissory note, under Alaska law as interpreted by the district court, does not constitute a security interest that must be disclosed under the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act if judgment can only be obtained after notice and
• Greenwell v. United States
  317 F.2d 108· D.C. Cir.· 1963-01-17 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the indigent defendant's requests for subpoenas under Rule 17(b) by requiring more than averments in the supporting affidavit. The case is remanded to determine if the error was prejudicial.
• Lauderdale v. Lauderdale
  96 So. 2d 663· Fla. 3d DCA· 1957-07-30 ·cited 70×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, finding no abuse of discretion in its alimony, child support, attorney fees, and property division awards, and upholding the wife's claim to half of the mortgage proceeds.
• Geibel v. State
  817 So. 2d 1042· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-06-05 ·cited 69×
  Carl Geibel was convicted of armed robbery based on eyewitness identification despite significant discrepancies between the victim's initial description and his actual appearance. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal but reversed and rem
• Barton Protective Servs., Inc. v. Faber
  745 So. 2d 968· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-07-21 ·cited 69×
  A shopping mall security company (Barton) was held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest as a willful participant in joint action with police officers who arrested two men without probable cause. The court affirmed the liability finding but reversed the trial court's app
• Castro v. State
  644 So. 2d 987· Fla.· 1994-09-08 ·cited 69×
  Edward Castro was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After two prior death sentences were overturned on appeal due to procedural errors, Castro was resentenced to death following a new penalty hearing. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, f
• Abruzzo v. Haller
  603 So. 2d 1338· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-08-12 ·cited 69×
  Abruzzo appealed the dismissal of his three-count complaint against his former employer Haller and Haller's law firm for unpaid wages and other relief. The court reversed the dismissal of Count II (breach of contract for unpaid wages) but affirmed the dismissal of Counts I (decla
• Thomas v. Town OF Davie
  847 F.2d 771· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's § 1983 claim with prejudice without granting leave to amend the complaint.
• Ordower v. Feldman
  826 F.2d 1569· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings through untimely service of process.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Meese
  791 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act was timely and appealable, and that the government was not substantially justified in its defense of the entire case, warranting an award of fees for the whole litigation.
• Goforth v. Roger Douglas Owens, M.D.
  766 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the medical malpractice action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
• Lefteri Poulis and Athena Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  747 F.2d 863· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 69×
  The court held that while dismissal is a drastic sanction, the district court did not abuse its discretion in affirming dismissal given the compounded issues of attorney dilatoriness, prejudice to the adversary, and a prima facie defense, despite the lack of contumacious conduct.
• Elisida Zavala-Bonilla v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  730 F.2d 562· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 69×
  The Board of Immigration Appeals erred in denying political asylum and suspension of deportation because its findings were not supported by substantial evidence and it failed to consider all relevant factors.
• Crum v. State
  398 So. 2d 810· Fla.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 69×
  The trial court abused its discretion in denying Preston Crum's motion for severance, as the basis for the motion was not known before trial and the antagonistic defenses prejudiced him.
• United States v. Partin
  493 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 69×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the total financial benefits paid to material witnesses and the failure to provide specific jury instructions on the impeachment of witnesses constituted reversible error.
• Adams Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Constr. Prods. Corp.
  156 So. 2d 497· Fla.· 1963-04-24 ·cited 69×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's decision to deny a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution under Florida Statute Section 45.19 is a discretionary matter reviewable only for abuse of discretion, not subject to de novo appellate review. The court quashed the d
• Cherry v. Dometic Corp.
  986 F.3d 1296· 11th Cir.· 2021-02-02 ·cited 68×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that administrative feasibility is not a prerequisite for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and that federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act does not depend on class certification.
• Welch v. State
  992 So. 2d 206· Fla.· 2008-09-25 ·cited 68×
  Anthony Welch was convicted of murdering two victims and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court vacated his death sentences because the trial court failed to ask the State to provide a gender-neutral basis for its peremptory strike of a female juror, violating the establis
• Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood
  278 F. Supp. 2d 1337· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-25 ·cited 68×
  The court held that a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue decided issues and that the plaintiffs failed to present new facts or law to warrant overturning the prior order.
• Smith v. Coal. TO Reduce Class Size & Pre-K Comm.
  827 So. 2d 959· Fla.· 2002-09-13 ·cited 68×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a state statute requiring fiscal impact statements on constitutional initiative ballot measures violates the Florida Constitution because such requirements are not necessary to ensure ballot integrity and impermissibly weaken the initiative pow
• Lipsig v. Zahid A. Ramlawi
  760 So. 2d 170· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-03-29 ·cited 68×
  In this partnership dispute, a jury found that Zahid Ramlawi and the Dahlawi family (Amin, Hassan, and Diana) had formed an oral partnership encompassing five companies, and that the Dahlawis breached the partnership agreement and defamed Ramlawi. The appellate court affirmed the
• Kennedy v. Kennedy
  622 So. 2d 1033· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-07-23 ·cited 68×
  The trial court erred in automatically equalizing the parties' incomes based solely on marriage duration and marital standard of living, without considering all statutory factors required by Florida law. The appellate court reversed, holding that trial courts must consider all re
• United States v. Santiago
  906 F.2d 867· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 68×
  The court held that prior uncharged narcotics transactions can be considered for sentencing if part of the same course of conduct, but a defendant cannot be denied acceptance of responsibility for refusing to admit to such uncharged conduct.
• Conway v. Electro Switch Corp.
  825 F.2d 593· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-06 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the admission of managers' statements as relevant to corporate state-of-mind and the jury's verdict, but reversed the denial of interest on front pay, remanding for recalculation.
• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  732 F.2d 452· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-21 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the denial of permissive intervention to the Mayor and City Council of New Orleans was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Burnette
  698 F.2d 1038· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the evidence found in Lynette's purse was admissible because the police's extensive search of the purse at the time of arrest destroyed any reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher
  605 F.2d 1130· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, but that the specific requirement to insert hyphens in written and oral references to the defendants' mark was an abuse of discretion and should be eliminated.
• United States v. Burton
  584 F.2d 485· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance based on the defendant's desire to retain new counsel, particularly when the withdrawal of the original counsel was due to circumstances beyond the defendant's control.
• Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  540 F.2d 1023· 10th Cir.· 1976-08-11 ·cited 68×·via Arbitrary, Capricious, Or Abuse Of Discretion Standard
  The court held that the Administrator had the authority to promulgate effluent limitations for existing sources and that the use of single numbers in these regulations was permissible. The 1977 variance provisions were also upheld as a valid exercise of rulemaking authority.
• Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union OF NEW York & Vicinity
  514 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-20 ·cited 68×
  The court concurred in the result of a lower court decision involving a hiring quota, finding the case inappropriate for reexamination of the issue.
• Silva v. Lynn
  482 F.2d 1282· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-05 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was facially insufficient because it failed to adequately discuss environmental problems, alternatives, and the reasoning behind the chosen plan, violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
• Smith v. United States
  324 F.2d 436· D.C. Cir.· 1963-10-10 ·cited 68×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  Leave to withdraw a guilty plea was properly denied because the defendant was not prejudiced by any mistaken belief about parole eligibility.