Also known as: abuse of discretion review · abuse of discretion · abuse of discretion standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An appellate standard under which a reviewing court upholds a lower court's ruling unless the decision is arbitrary, irrational, or rests on an incorrect legal premise. The standard applies to discretionary calls such as evidentiary rulings on expert testimony and certain procedural determinations. It requires deference to the trial court's judgment when the ruling falls within a range of reasonable choices.
Apex Pharma faced hundreds of suits claiming its drug caused nerve damage. Plaintiffs offered Dr. Lopez, who relied on case reports and animal studies. The district court found too great a gap between the data and her causation opinion, excluded the testimony, and granted summary judgment. On appeal the court affirmed because the gatekeeping decision was not arbitrary.
Center for Humanities lost a copyright trial and moved for a new trial or remittitur after a large verdict. The district court applied state law to reduce the award. The court of appeals reviewed that reduction under abuse-of-discretion review and affirmed the adjusted amount.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Massachusetts and other states petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles. EPA declined, citing policy reasons. The Supreme Court reviewed the denial under abuse-of-discretion review and held the agency had failed to exercise its statutory authority properly.
Stewart Organization sued Ricoh in Alabama despite a New York forum clause. The district court refused to transfer the case. The court of appeals reviewed the refusal for abuse of discretion and reversed because the clause should have controlled the venue analysis.
Amchem Products faced thousands of asbestos claims and proposed a global settlement class. The district court certified the class. The court of appeals reviewed the certification decision for abuse of discretion and reversed because common issues did not predominate.
Female employees sued Wal-Mart alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotion. The district court certified a nationwide class. The court of appeals reviewed the certification order for abuse of discretion and reversed because the plaintiffs failed to show a common policy.
Appellate courts review the exclusion for abuse of discretion. The trial judge acts as gatekeeper and must assess both reliability and relevance. Deference applies even when the ruling leads to summary judgment.
Supporting sources
No. The abuse-of-discretion standard still governs the evidentiary decision itself. The grant of summary judgment receives separate de novo review, but the underlying ruling on expert testimony remains deferential.
Supporting sources
Unless the appointing order sets a different standard, a court may set aside a master's procedural ruling only for abuse of discretion.
Supporting sources
…it under Rule 403 or 702. Daubert , --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2798. Such a ruling would be reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. One other procedural matter detains us. According to plaintiffs, they weren't required to come forward with any evidence to survive summary judgment because the affidavit of Merrell's…