Also known as: abuse of discretion · abuses its discretion · abusing its discretion · abuse of discretion standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review that permits reversal of a lower court's, trustee's, or agency's discretionary decision only when the ruling falls outside the range of permissible choices. The standard requires the reviewing court to determine whether the decision maker considered the proper factors, applied the correct legal principles, and reached a result supported by the record. Reversal follows when the decision rests on an erroneous view of the law, lacks any rational basis, or reflects a clear error of judgment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Austin Abbott sued Aether Technologies for patent infringement. Aether offered an expert who relied on an untested internal script and extrapolated laptop results to real-world conditions. The district court excluded the testimony after a Daubert hearing. On appeal the circuit court affirmed, holding that the exclusion did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Adam Anderson requested to represent himself at trial after the court appointed counsel. The trial judge denied the request, finding Anderson lacked sufficient understanding of the proceedings. The appellate court reviewed the denial and concluded the trial court had not abused its discretion.
Andre Antoine sued Albert Allen, who moved to stay proceedings pending resolution of related claims. The district court granted an indefinite stay. The court of appeals held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a stay that effectively denied timely adjudication.
Arcadia Retail challenged an EPA regulation that exempted certain emissions sources. The agency had declined to regulate on the ground that it lacked statutory authority. The Supreme Court held that the EPA abused its discretion by failing to consider whether the statute compelled regulation.
Amelia Amari sued Apollo Energy after an industrial accident. Her expert linked the company's equipment to the injury based on limited data. The district court excluded the opinion for an analytical gap between data and conclusion. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the exclusion.
Alexandra Armstrong introduced cockpit voice recordings in a wrongful-death action against Anchor Bank. The district court admitted portions of the reports over objection. The court of appeals reviewed the admission and determined that the trial court had not abused its discretion.
No. A trustee retains discretion even when the trust instrument supplies a support standard. The beneficiary or a qualifying support creditor may challenge the trustee's exercise only by showing that the trustee acted arbitrarily or failed to apply the standard in good faith. Ordinary commercial creditors cannot compel distributions on this basis.
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…
…to testify is primarily for the discretion of the trial court. An appellate tribunal will not interfere unless a clear
…denial of the motion to dismiss on immunity grounds. It also reversed the stay of the trial, holding that the District Court had abused its discretion
…district courts in making class certification decisions, and their judgments are to be reviewed by the court of appeals only for abuse of discretion
…(2) does not provide any right of self-representation. [^maj-7]: The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court had not "abused its discretion
The appellate court must conclude that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard, failed to perform its gatekeeping function, or reached a decision unsupported by the record. Mere disagreement with the outcome does not establish an abuse of discretion.
Supporting sources
Generally no. The remedy for abuse of discretion belongs to the beneficiary or to narrowly defined family-support creditors. A commercial or tort judgment creditor lacks standing to compel distributions even when the trustee's conduct might constitute an abuse.
Supporting sources
The trial court must correctly identify a permissible non-negligence purpose such as proving control or feasibility and must issue a limiting instruction when appropriate. Reversal follows only if the ruling rests on an erroneous legal premise or reflects a clear error of judgment.
Supporting sources