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. Ross
  886 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court committed plain error by failing to excuse a juror who stated she could not be fair to the defendant.
• In re The Baltimore SUN Co. v. The Honorable Clarence E. Goetz
  886 F.2d 60· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 14×
  The press has a qualified common law right of access to search warrant affidavits, but not a First Amendment right. Sealing orders require specific findings and adherence to procedural safeguards.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jerrie R. Nichols
  885 F.2d 633· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction based solely on forum shopping, as there was no concurrent state proceeding and federal courts have a duty to exercise jurisdiction.
• Zinniel v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  883 F.2d 1350· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 14×
  The Tax Court abused its discretion by finding the Commissioner's position reasonable, as the Commissioner's failure to issue timely regulations and subsequent assessment of deficiencies based on those unpromulgated rules was unreasonable and abusive.
• Hoar v. Sara LEE Corp.
  882 F.2d 682· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal of a Rule 37 sanction imposed jointly on a party and its attorney, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction.
• Baker v. Raulie
  879 F.2d 1396· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an attorney's busy schedule does not constitute excusable neglect for failing to file a timely notice of appeal, and the district court abused its discretion in granting an extension without proper notice to the opposing party.
• In re Sealed Case
  877 F.2d 976· D.C. Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that disclosure of one document to the DCAA constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege, even if inadvertent, but remanded for further consideration of the scope of that waiver. The court also affirmed the denial of a hearing on alleged government misconduct
• United States ex rel. D'Agostino v. Keohane
  877 F.2d 1167· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 14×
  Section 235(b)(3) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is a 'wind-up' provision that does not guarantee a release date within the guideline range for individuals who will not be under the Parole Commission's jurisdiction by its expiration date. The Parole Commission's sua sponte
• United States v. Pinelli
  890 F.2d 1461· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 14×
  The court reaffirmed its prior decision, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1955 is not unconstitutionally vague and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of the appellants.
• United States v. Lutrell Davis
  876 F.2d 71· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 14×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing the defendant's proposed jury instructions, admitting certain testimony, or excluding defense exhibits, and properly denied the motion for acquittal.
• United States v. Komisaruk
  885 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in precluding evidence of international law, necessity, or crime prevention as defenses to the charge of willfully damaging government property, nor in refusing a jury instruction on trespass as a lesser included offense.
• Samuels v. Wilder
  871 F.2d 1346· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, denying a motion to amend the complaint, and enforcing the indemnity clause and counterclaim.
• Harrison v. Harrison
  540 So. 2d 230· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-03-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award permanent periodic alimony and attorney's fees to the wife, and by making a computational error in the equitable distribution of assets.
• Miss. Women's Med. Clinic v. McMILLAN
  866 F.2d 788· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 14×
• Marsee v. United States Tobacco Co.
  866 F.2d 319· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence and making discovery rulings, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• United States v. Maichle
  861 F.2d 178· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior drug-related acts to prove intent and in ruling that a ten-year-old conviction could be used for impeachment.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Sun Belt Fed. Bank v. Kroenke
  858 F.2d 1067· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kroenke's motion to alter or amend the judgment denying relief from default, as Kroenke's asserted defenses lacked merit and his failure to respond was not due to excusable neglect or surprise.
• Richardson v. The City OF Albuquerque
  857 F.2d 727· 10th Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 14×·via Manifest Abuse Of Discretion
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendants on discrimination claims was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court correctly directed a verdict against the plaintiff's due process claim.
• United States v. Hinds
  856 F.2d 438· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the search warrant's description of 'cocaine paraphernalia' was sufficiently particular and that the search of the premises did not exceed the warrant's scope. The admission of hearsay statements and testimony about a seized gun was also deemed proper.
• The State OF Alaska v. Native Vill. OF Venetie
  856 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 14×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the balance of hardships and public interest favored the appellees, and serious questions were raised regarding the appellants' tribal status and jurisdiction to tax.
• United States v. Plain
  856 F.2d 913· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 14×
  A district judge's consideration of parole eligibility guidelines in sentencing does not constitute an abuse of discretion or a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, even if the judge's understanding of those guidelines is later found to be mistaken.
• In re Marvin Props., Inc. v. Marvin Props., Inc.
  854 F.2d 1183· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-19 ·cited 14×·via Abuse Of Discretion (Appellate Review)
  The court held that the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) unambiguously requires a seller to give written notice directly to the buyer to perfect a statutory trust.
• Jordan v. Wilson
  851 F.2d 1290· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the mayor and police chief's public statements, while undiplomatic, did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of retaliation or a violation of the injunction's requirement for respect and support, thus reversing the civil contempt finding.
• United States v. Byrski
  854 F.2d 955· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to manifest necessity, and therefore, the double jeopardy clause does not bar reprosecution.
• Jauregui v. City OF Glendale
  852 F.2d 1128· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the City discriminated against Officer Jauregui based on national origin under Title VII, affirming the district court's order for promotion, back pay, and attorney's fees.
• C.J. ARD v. Sw. Forest Indus.
  849 F.2d 517· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 14×
  Four foremen challenged their termination by Southwest Forest Industries following a management reorganization, claiming age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court granted Southwest's motion for a new trial after the first jury verdict f
• United States v. Curro
  847 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 14×
• Ellison v. Ford Motor Co.
  847 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without first considering the plaintiff's pending motion to amend the complaint.
• Stewart v. Am. Int'l OIL & GAS Co. & James A. Ragland
  845 F.2d 196· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Meridian's third-party complaint for failing to establish derivative liability under Rule 14, nor in imposing Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous complaint for an improper purpose.
• David K. v. Lane
  839 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 14×
  The court's opinion strongly urges prison officials to crack down on gangs, acknowledging the difficulty in doing so under current legal constraints.
• Northshore Dev., Inc. v. LEE
  835 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the FSLIC's motion to vacate the state court judgment.
• Starr v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  831 F.2d 872· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney's fees without sufficient findings to support the reasonableness of the amount granted.
• Marks v. Shell OIL Co.
  830 F.2d 68· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without first considering the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint.
• Feigler v. Tidex, Inc.
  826 F.2d 1435· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-17 ·cited 14×
  A federal court entertaining a maritime claim has discretion to adjudicate non-federal claims derived from a common nucleus of operative fact, even against a party not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction.
• Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co.
  827 F.2d 246· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the contract's limitation of liability provision was valid and enforceable, and that the denial of the motion to reconsider was not an abuse of discretion due to a lack of due diligence in presenting
• Bloodwell v. Bloodwell
  508 So. 2d 771· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-06-18 ·cited 14×
• Sayad v. Alley
  508 So. 2d 485· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-06-09 ·cited 14×
• Chong v. Dir., United States Info. Agency & Dist. Dir., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Pittsburgh
  821 F.2d 171· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the USIA's decision not to recommend a waiver is subject to limited judicial review under an abuse of discretion standard, but that the USIA did not abuse its discretion in this case.
• In re Diaz Contracting, Inc. v. Nanco Contracting Corp.
  817 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a debtor's financial difficulty alone is insufficient to overcome the presumptive validity of a forum selection clause, and that the district court erred in applying an abuse of discretion standard of review.
• Dunbar v. Triangle Lumber & Supply Co.
  816 F.2d 126· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) requires consideration of the client's personal responsibility and the merits of the claim, and that the district court abused its discretion by not fully considering these factors.
• Evans v. Evans
  507 So. 2d 1130· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-04-06 ·cited 14×
  In this divorce appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of five-year rehabilitative alimony to the wife, finding no evidentiary basis for concluding she would be "rehabilitated" during that period. The court held that rehabilitative alimony r
• Chambless v. Masters
  815 F.2d 869· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 14×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Fee Awards
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees under ERISA when all five factors weighed in the plaintiff's favor, and that the refusal to amend the judgment regarding pension benefits was premature.
• Sierra Club v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  813 F.2d 1480· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Union Oil could not assert the upset defense because it failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the district court misapplied the upset defense by allowing it for water quality-based exceedances and operator error.
• Davlan v. Otis Elevator Co.
  816 F.2d 287· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the elevator maintainer, Otis Elevator Company, because there was insufficient evidence of prior knowledge or failure to discover a defect.
• Benson v. Minette Benson
  503 So. 2d 384· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was no reversible error in the final judgment of marriage dissolution, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding alimony, life insurance, medical insurance, and pension plan designations.
• Farmworker Just. Fund, Inc. v. Brock
  811 F.2d 613· D.C. Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 14×
  The Secretary of Labor's decision to delay issuing field sanitation rules for two years violated the 1982 settlement agreement by further postponing either promulgation or a final decision not to promulgate.
• Furlong v. Gudknecht
  808 F.2d 233· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argues that an elected official may consider party affiliation when appointing a principal deputy, especially when that deputy may succeed to the elected office.
• Mass. Ass'n OF Older Americans v. Commissioner OF Public Welfare
  803 F.2d 35· 1st Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 14×
  The court's opinion should not be read as tying the state to cumbersome administrative procedures, but rather as clarifying the terms of an injunction.
• Vern Leslie Herd v. Kincheloe
  800 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 14×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that both the Sandstrom jury instruction error and the Bruton error were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence of guilt.
• Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel
  799 F.2d 1409· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alaska Limestone's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.