Sentences with phrase «abuse of discretion standard»

The standard of review was determinative, because a «good faith» determination in this context is a discretionary call for the lower court and reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

That determination was affirmed on appeal because the amount of fees award is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

The problem was that plaintiff could not surmount the deferential abuse of discretion standard applicable to gauging reasonableness.

This substantial evidence rule and its close cousin, the abuse of discretion standard, are beacons of appellate practice, and those beacons were dispositive in the next case we discuss.

Most importantly on appeal, lower courts» 271 decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, focusing on whether substantial evidence supports a particular decision.

Although an order denying routine costs is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, there is an important qualifier to application of this rule — there must be an indication that the trial court actually did exercise discretion.

Although not stated in Castro, we believe that a determination on this issue would be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

Given the «typical case» characterization of the trial judge and the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review, the appellant court perceived the lower court could have reasoned that the hourly rate was too high or number of hours claimed excessive for a case which was not extraordinary in nature.

The Supreme Court applied the abuse of discretion standard, meaning that even for less serious crimes, trial judges will have wide leeway to impose lifetime probation.

You know that in ERISA claims where the court is applying the abuse of discretion standard, the court may allow «conflict discovery.»

The abuse of discretion standard is a notoriously high bar and has no place in this Court's jurisprudence under section 12 of the Charter,» wrote McLachlin.

On appeal, the Virginia Court of Appeals recognized that the applicable standard for reviewing a trial court's ruling that a party was in contempt of court was the abuse of discretion standard, citing Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va..

Not exact matches

The standard of review almost always requires the petitioner to show that the failure to prosecute was «an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.»

The Rita standard for a guidelines sentence seems to be an «abuse of discretion plus» standard of review.

A return to garden variety abuse of discretion would bring us back to the pre-SRA standard, which is not what Booker envisions.

The court recognized that the standard of review on appeal for an award of spousal support was an abuse of discretion, citing Fox v. Fox, 61 Va..

Particularly when the standard is — as it is for most evidentiary issues — an abuse of discretion.

Initially, the First Circuit focused on the standards of Daubert / Kumho, stating that this type of expert testimony is subject to a Daubert review, that the trial judge has broad latitude in determining the admissibility of an expert, and that the trial judge's decision will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion.

The court has wide discretion in allowing experiments, demonstrations, and tests, and the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

The foregoing demonstrates that the application of Rule 1910.16 - 5 (m) has been fact - specific and inconsistent in shared custody cases, partly because the «abuse of discretion» standard of appellate review necessitates subjective analysis of a myriad and disparate variety of family circumstances.