Also known as:abuse of discretion · abuses of discretion · discretion abused · abused discretion · abuse of discretion doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review under which a trial court's ruling is upheld unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or outside the range of permissible choices. A finding of abuse requires a clear showing that the decision lacked a reasonable basis in the facts or governing law.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Expert Testimony Exclusion Upheld
Pacific Logic sued United Cloud for patent infringement over a facial recognition algorithm. United Cloud offered computer scientist Owen to testify that its algorithm could not perform the accused functions, relying on an untested internal script and laptop extrapolations. The district court held a Daubert hearing and excluded the testimony for lack of reliable methodology and an analytical gap between data and opinion. On appeal the circuit court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the gatekeeping decision.
Forum Selection Clause Transfer
Stewart Organization sued Ricoh Corporation in Alabama state court on a contract containing a New York forum selection clause. Ricoh removed the case and moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The district court denied the motion, giving little weight to the clause. The Supreme Court held that the clause must be considered as a significant factor in the transfer analysis and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion once the correct standard was applied.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Dictionaries
Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)
Zoning Decision Motive Review
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. sought rezoning to build integrated housing in Arlington Heights. The village denied the request after public opposition citing traffic and density concerns. Plaintiffs alleged the denial was racially motivated. The Supreme Court held that proof of discriminatory intent required more than disparate impact and remanded for further findings on the village's decision-making process. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's handling of the evidentiary record.
Arlington Heights, Village of v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977), on remand 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir.1977)
Establishment Clause Ruling
Agostini and other parents sued to enjoin a program sending public school teachers into parochial schools for remedial instruction. The district court had previously found an Establishment Clause violation. On review the Supreme Court held that changed circumstances and intervening precedent required reconsideration of the injunction and remanded for application of the current test. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's procedural management of the remand.
Agostini v. Felton521 U.S. 203 (1997)
Law School Admissions Challenge
Barbara Grutter challenged the University of Michigan Law School's race-conscious admissions policy after her application was denied. The district court found the policy violated equal protection. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's factual findings and legal conclusions under the applicable standard of review. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary rulings.
Grutter v. Bollinger188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999)
Line Item Veto Challenge
The City of New York and other plaintiffs challenged the Line Item Veto Act after President Clinton canceled specific spending provisions that benefited them. The district court held the Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reviewed the cancellation authority and the standing of the affected parties under the statute. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's procedural rulings on standing.
Clinton v. City of New York524 U.S. 417, 118 S. Ct. 2091, 141 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1998)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What must a party show to establish abuse of discretion on appeal?+
A party must demonstrate that the trial court's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or outside the range of reasonable choices given the facts and applicable law. Mere disagreement with the outcome is insufficient. The standard is highly deferential to the trial court.
Supporting sources
Does abuse of discretion review apply to trustee distribution decisions?+
Yes. A beneficiary may maintain an action against a trustee for abuse of discretion even when the trust instrument grants sole discretion. Courts examine whether the trustee acted in good faith and consistent with the trust purposes.
Supporting sources
How does abuse of discretion differ from de novo review?+
Abuse of discretion review is deferential and focuses on whether the decision fell within a permissible range. De novo review examines the question anew without deference to the lower court's ruling. Most discretionary trial management decisions receive abuse of discretion review.
Supporting sources
509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)Evidence
…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…