Abuse Of Discretion Standard On Appeal

197 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Grunin v. Int'l House OF Pancakes
  513 F.2d 114· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-17 ·cited 121×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of the class action settlement regarding notice and fairness but remanded the attorney fee award for reevaluation due to insufficient evidence.
• Hoskins v. State
  965 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 2007-04-19 ·cited 113×
  Johnny Hoskins appeals his death sentence on resentencing following remand for a new penalty phase proceeding. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, finding no error in jury selection, jury instructions, consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
• Farish v. Lum's, Inc.
  267 So. 2d 325· Fla.· 1972-09-27 ·cited 105×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a conflict between two District Court decisions regarding whether a trial court abuses its discretion by granting summary judgment based on a defendant's failure to file sworn and signed responses to requests for admissions. The Court held that
• Harrington v. DeVITO
  656 F.2d 264· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 95×
  The court held that the State's appeal of the attorneys' fee allocation was without merit, as the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs prevailed against the State and in allocating a portion of the fees to it.
• United States v. Kobrosky
  711 F.2d 449· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions to withdraw his guilty plea, both before and after sentencing.
• Silas v. Sears
  586 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion because dismissal was too severe a sanction for the attorney's neglect.
• Camenisch v. The Univ. OF Tex.
  616 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a private right of action exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for injunctive relief, and that plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
• Smith v. United States
  324 F.2d 436· D.C. Cir.· 1963-10-10 ·cited 68×
  Leave to withdraw a guilty plea was properly denied because the defendant was not prejudiced by any mistaken belief about parole eligibility.
• Benson Hotel Corp. v. Woods
  168 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1948-06-11 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the interlocutory judgment granting a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellate court's role is to review the trial court's discretion, not to decide the merits of the case.
• Norbert D. Terlikowski v. United States
  379 F.2d 501· 8th Cir.· 1967-06-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various claims regarding speedy trial, due process, severance, removal from state custody, and the right to subpoena witnesses were without merit.
• The Officers FOR Just. v. The Civil Serv. Comm'n OF the City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  688 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-21 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of a consent decree in a class action employment discrimination suit, finding it to be a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution.
• United States v. Ramsey
  726 F.2d 601· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 53×
  The court's disposition is agreed with, but the judge dissents regarding the handling of recanted testimony.
• Woodfork v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union
  642 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 51×
  The majority reversed the district court's denial of leave to amend and remanded for a redetermination of the cause of action's accrual date, while the dissent argued the district court acted correctly in both respects.
• United States v. Russell
  686 F.2d 35· D.C. Cir.· 1982-08-31 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a guilty plea induced by the prosecutor's misrepresentation regarding deportation consequences is involuntary and must be vacated, even if deportation is generally considered a collateral consequence.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  611 F.2d 795· 10th Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a consent decree, even if based on an interpretation that could not have been forced through litigation, is not subject to collateral attack or modification based on subsequent changes in the law or perceived legal error, absent a showing of extreme hardship f
• Am. Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt
  714 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, even considering potential NEPA violations, because the public interest in protecting fragile desert resources outweighed the plaintiffs' claims.
• Apel v. United States
  247 F.2d 277· 8th Cir.· 1957-08-12 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or in denying the motion for a new trial.
• In re Application of Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  653 F.2d 609· D.C. Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the broadcasters' post-trial application to copy video and audio tapes introduced into evidence, as the presumption of access to judicial records outweighed the speculative risks of prejudice and harm to thir
• Fischer v. United States
  212 F.2d 441· 10th Cir.· 1954-04-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of evidence, jury instructions, and denial of a bill of particulars were not erroneous, affirming the conviction.
• Carol and Stanley Zabkowicz v. The W. Bend Co.
  789 F.2d 540· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Wisconsin Worker's Compensation Act's exclusivity provision barred state tort claims against the employer and supervisors, but reversed the denial of attorneys' fees for the successful Title VII claim, remanding for a determination of a reasonable fee.
• Clarke v. Burkle
  570 F.2d 824· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment without an evidentiary hearing, and that the summary judgment for the defendant in the second case must also be vacated pending the outcome of that hearing.
• Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc.
  550 F.2d 1173· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the class action settlement, finding adequate representation, notice, and fairness.
• Paris Reizakis v. LOY
  490 F.2d 1132· 4th Cir.· 1974-01-22 ·cited 38×
  The court held that dismissal for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) requires careful judicial discretion and cannot be mechanically applied, especially when the plaintiff is not personally responsible for the attorney's conduct.
• Davis v. Operation Amigo, Inc.
  378 F.2d 101· 10th Cir.· 1967-05-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution and judgment on counterclaims were too harsh sanctions given the procedural history and circumstances.
• Green v. State
  408 So. 2d 1086· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-01-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever the charges, that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the jury exceeding the scope of a view did not prejudice the defendant.
• Rev. Dianne Fennell v. Butler
  570 F.2d 263· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court should consider alternative tests for preliminary injunctions, balancing hardships and serious questions going to the merits.
• Nathalie L. Dupont v. S. Pac. Co.
  366 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court's consolidation of cases did not prejudice the substantial rights of the driver's survivors, nor was the appointment of lead counsel an abuse of discretion.
• Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc.
  340 So. 2d 962· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-12-20 ·cited 35×
  Motorcycle accident victims appealed a jury verdict awarding them $125,000 and $35,000 respectively, challenging the admission of experimental evidence demonstrating the motorcycle's stopping ability and negotiating capability, along with other trial errors. The appellate court a
• Blackshear Residents Org. v. Romney
  472 F.2d 1197· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to halt the funding of a low-income housing project.
• Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc. v. Updegraff
  807 So. 2d 768· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-02-20 ·cited 34×
  Bouchard Transportation and Maritrans appeal certification of three classes in an oil spill damages action. The court affirmed certification of classes for residential and business property owners whose properties were physically invaded by pollution, but reversed certification o
• Murphy v. State
  459 So. 2d 337· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-10-18 ·cited 34×
  The trial court did not err in departing from the sentencing guidelines to impose a sentence based on the circumstances of the offense, as judicial discretion in sentencing has not been abrogated.
• Bailey v. United States
  405 F.2d 1352· D.C. Cir.· 1968-09-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that instructing the jury on the death penalty for a crime that was later deemed unconstitutional, even if the jury did not impose it, constitutes reversible error due to the prejudice it creates.
• Locascio v. Teletype Corp.
  694 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
• Miller v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  559 F.2d 426· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the class action settlement, as it was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and the notice provided satisfied due process requirements.
• Nedrick Young v. Motion Picture Ass'n OF Am., Inc.
  299 F.2d 119· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-18 ·cited 32×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction will not be set aside unless the District Court's action constitutes clear error or abuse of discretion, and the record supported the trial court's findings.
• United States v. Reeves
  674 F.2d 739· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for severance and mistrial, nor in refusing to grant continuances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts.
• Winfield Assocs., Inc. v. Stonecipher
  429 F.2d 1087· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-14 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the denial of equitable relief from a default judgment, finding the appellant's situation resulted from inexcusable neglect and failure to pursue available legal remedies like appeal.
• United States v. Jackson
  425 F.2d 574· D.C. Cir.· 1970-03-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on the modus operandi of pickpockets and in accepting the witness as a qualified expert.
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Liggon
  668 So. 2d 259· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-02-15 ·cited 28×
  In this workers' compensation appeal, Wal-Mart and its carrier challenged a permanent total disability (PTD) award to Linda Liggon, an injured employee restricted to part-time sedentary work. The court reversed the PTD award, holding that the claimant's ability to perform part-ti
• United States v. Truglio
  493 F.2d 574· 4th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was not voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from joint representation and coercive plea negotiations, and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
• United States v. Smith
  433 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on recanted testimony or an alleged jury composition error.
• Grady L. West and Clifford C. Graham v. Gilbert
  361 F.2d 314· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute and in denying the motion to vacate the dismissal order.
• LaSALLE Extension Univ. & Katharine Gibbs Sch. (Inc.) v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  627 F.2d 481· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while a district court must consider all four factors for awarding FOIA attorneys' fees, a remand is not required if the record is clear and the government had a reasonable legal basis for withholding information, even if the district court's findings were not
• Santiago v. State
  889 So. 2d 200· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-12-15 ·cited 25×
  Patrick Santiago appealed the revocation of his community control for domestic battery, leaving his approved residence without permission, and resisting arrest without violence. The court reversed the revocation on the first two counts due to insufficient non-hearsay evidence but
• Planet Corp. v. Sullivan
  702 F.2d 123· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by entertaining an untimely motion to vacate a default judgment, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion.
• United States v. Strauss
  563 F.2d 127· 4th Cir.· 1977-10-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing.
• Cordero v. United States
  533 F.2d 723· 1st Cir.· 1976-04-16 ·cited 24×
  A district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, even if the defendant later realizes deportation is a consequence, as deportation is a collateral consequence.
• Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  497 F.2d 1330· 8th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in severing the plaintiffs' individual actions, as they arose from the same series of transactions and presented common questions of law or fact under Rule 20(a).
• United States v. Tabory
  462 F.2d 352· 4th Cir.· 1972-06-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea.
• Baggett Transp. Co. v. Hughes Transp., Inc.
  393 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1968-04-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary injunction, as it had jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.A. § 322(b)(2) and the circumstances warranted such relief despite a pending review action in another district court.