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

• Milanes v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
  507 So. 2d 777· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-05-26 ·cited 12×
  The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment, holding that service of process at the ex-wife's residence did not satisfy Florida's strict requirements for substituted service and that the trial court abused its discre
• In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc. v. Mark Twain Indus., Inc.
  817 F.2d 1361· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 12×
  The court should grant MTI's motion for attorney's fees and impose double costs on the appellants.
• Ira L. Hart v. United States
  817 F.2d 78· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to properly serve the United States within the prescribed time limit.
• United States v. Hughes
  817 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in disqualifying counsel due to conflict of interest, denying motions for bills of particulars, denying severance, denying a motion for new trial, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants of conspiracy.
• Bituminous Constr., Inc. v. Rucker Enters., Inc.
  816 F.2d 965· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 12×
  A defendant who presents evidence after their Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss is denied waives the right to appeal the denial, and the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed based on the entire record.
• Lucero v. City OF Trinidad
  815 F.2d 1384· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of attorneys' fees by reducing hourly rates, as the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of prevailing market rates.
• United States v. Lueben
  812 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that excluding expert testimony on the materiality of false statements was an error that required reversal of convictions for making false statements, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy.
• United States v. Puig
  810 F.2d 1085· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-24 ·cited 12×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Severance
  The court held that the border search of the boat, including drilling into its hull, was constitutional, and the defendants' statements were voluntary and admissible. Any error regarding comments on post-Miranda silence was harmless.
• United States v. Udom Walitwarangkul
  808 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 12×
  Possession of a locked container with contraband, combined with other circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient for a jury to infer knowing possession.
• United States v. Whiteside
  810 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 12×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance
  The court held that the admission of government exhibits and the denial of a continuance were not erroneous, and the jury instructions on willfulness were proper.
• United States v. Huddleston
  810 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding jury selection, admission of coconspirator statements, limitations on cross-examination, jury instructions, or witness testimony, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Eldon Earl "Bud" Cutler
  806 F.2d 933· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for additional informant information, a deposition, or an informal interview, nor in its evidentiary rulings, voir dire, or sentencing.
• United States v. Young
  806 F.2d 805· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion or in issuing the writ of assistance.
• Mitchell v. Off. OF the LOS Angeles Cnty. Superintendent OF Schs.
  805 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 12×
  The court's majority opinion used sweeping language inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent regarding attorney's fees for prevailing defendants.
• Carter v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr.
  804 F.2d 805· 3d Cir.· 1986-11-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while a client is generally bound by their attorney's actions, dismissal of a case as a sanction for attorney misconduct is inappropriate when the client is not personally at fault and lesser sanctions can be imposed on the attorney.
• Start v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  803 F.2d 539· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 12×
  The BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider all relevant factors and by acting contrary to congressional intent when deporting Robert Garcia Start.
• Bowers v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  800 F.2d 474· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's finding of no contributory negligence was supported by the evidence and that the jury instructions were proper, but that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest under recent Texas law.
• Thronson v. Meisels
  800 F.2d 136· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants' procedural failures precluded a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence related to the plaintiffs' financial status and statements made by Mrs. Meisels.
• United States v. Haywood Wright, Jr.
  799 F.2d 423· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an out-of-court statement under Fed.R.Evid. 403 and that the sentence imposed was within the court's discretion.
• Medtronic Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc.
  799 F.2d 734· Fed. Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 12×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For New Trial Motions
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the C/D patent was not proven invalid and the R/S patent was invalid for obviousness.
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  798 F.2d 969· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the applicants' motion to intervene was untimely because they knew or should have known of their interest in the litigation when the 1979 Agreed-to Injunctive Order was entered, and their claimed interests were not protectable.
• Rahim Sakhavat v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  796 F.2d 1201· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 12×
  The BIA abused its discretion by disbelieving affidavit evidence that was not inherently incredible, and by failing to accept Sakhavat's prima facie case for withholding of deportation and asylum.
• Ralph H. and Jackie C. Minor v. United States
  797 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the government's position substantially justified.
• Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Clark
  491 So. 2d 1196· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-07-16 ·cited 12×
  Seaboard Coast Line Railroad appeals from a trial court's order granting a new trial in a wrongful death case involving a train-pedestrian collision. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in granting the new trial because the failure to instruct the jur
• Pappas v. Pappas
  489 So. 2d 1242· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the equitable distribution of assets and alimony, but erred in the award of fees and costs.
• Conafay v. Wyeth Labs.
  793 F.2d 350· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff who proceeds to litigate on the merits after denial of a motion for voluntary dismissal waives the right to appeal that denial.
• United States v. Brown Costello Ramey
  791 F.2d 317· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 12×
  A district court has discretion to seal an indictment for legitimate prosecutorial needs beyond merely securing the defendant's arrest, and dismissal is only warranted upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the defendant.
• Bishop v. Cross
  790 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice for lack of prosecution based on the plaintiffs' absence from voir dire, as the requirement was not clearly articulated or made known to counsel.
• Carrison v. Carrison
  486 So. 2d 1363· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its equitable distribution of marital assets, including the lump sum alimony award, the lien on the husband's trust, and the wife's life estate in lease income.
• Datascope Corp. v. Kontron Inc.
  786 F.2d 398· Fed. Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for the dual lumen IAB device.
• United States v. Haley
  784 F.2d 1218· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Reeves
  782 F.2d 1323· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a jury trial on remand and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the IRS.
• Flynn v. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard
  782 F.2d 1084· 1st Cir.· 1986-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appellants failed to demonstrate a direct, substantial, legally protectible interest that would be impaired by the disposition of the suit, thus they were not entitled to intervene as of right.
• Eisenberg v. Lenape Prods., Inc.
  781 F.2d 999· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by finding that injunctive relief was not necessary to prevent harm to employees' right to engage in concerted activity pending final relief.
• United States v. Lewis
  780 F.2d 1140· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of a prior altercation was admissible, that assault resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. § 113(f) requires general intent, and that jury instructions on the unavailability of insanity and intoxication defenses were proper.
• United States v. Wood
  780 F.2d 555· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the bank's FDIC-insured status and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of alibi rebuttal witnesses despite the government's delayed disclosure.
• Gordon v. The State OF Idaho
  778 F.2d 1397· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's action should be affirmed.
• Zaddack v. A.B. Dick Co.
  773 F.2d 147· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute, nor in conditioning reinstatement on the payment of attorney fees.
• Marcoux v. Marcoux
  475 So. 2d 972· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-09-11 ·cited 12×
  Appellate courts cannot re-determine facts if competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings.
• United States v. Geary David Powell
  771 F.2d 1173· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct and prejudicial publicity, nor was there insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• Harris v. Ark. Dep't OF Human Servs.
  771 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration because no extraordinary circumstances justified setting aside the stipulation of facts.
• Smith v. Major DeBARTOLI
  769 F.2d 451· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-07 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that while a due process violation occurred, nominal damages were appropriate as the plaintiff's guilty plea meant the outcome would have been the same. The denial of costs was also upheld.
• United States & Tammy Harris v. Cmty. Bank & Tr. Co. & Nettie Robinson
  768 F.2d 311· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly allowed reimbursement in excess of Section 7610 rates and that the IRS's position on summons enforcement was not substantially justified, warranting attorneys' fees.
• State Off. Sys., Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. OF Am.
  762 F.2d 843· 10th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a damage summary exhibit, allowing the jury to consider consequential damages, or in denying a new trial based on the excessiveness of the verdict.
• Heirs v. The Hicks Co. & The State of S.D.
  756 F.2d 681· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while some closing argument comments were improper, they did not rise to the level of reversible error, and the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• United States v. Pizarro
  756 F.2d 579· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 12×·via Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting Pizarro's statement, excluding co-defendant's testimony, or in its rulings on prosecutorial comments, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Litton Sys., Inc. v. Sundstrand Corp.
  750 F.2d 952· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Litton's motion for a preliminary injunction, as Litton failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor.
• Job Carrete-Michel v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  749 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying the alien's petition for suspension of deportation and motion to reopen.
• United States v. Atkinson
  748 F.2d 659· Fed. Cir.· 1984-11-16 ·cited 12×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of St. Paul's motions, holding that the filing of a Rule 60(b) motion does not toll the time for filing an appeal and that St. Paul's appeal was frivolous.
• Sheeran v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
  746 F.2d 806· Fed. Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an appeal as untimely when the petitioner's counsel failed to show good cause for waiving the filing deadline.