Also known as: abuse of discretion · abuses of discretion · abuse of discretion review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A standard of appellate review under which a higher court reverses a lower court's discretionary ruling only if the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable. The standard recognizes that trial courts possess latitude in managing cases, ruling on evidence, and exercising judgment on matters committed to their discretion. Reversal occurs only when the ruling falls outside the range of permissible choices.
A standard of appellate review under which a higher court reverses a lower court's discretionary ruling only if the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable. The standard recognizes that trial courts possess latitude in managing cases, ruling on evidence, and exercising judgment on matters committed to their discretion. Reversal occurs only when the ruling falls outside the range of permissible choices.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A standard applied by courts to evaluate whether a trustee has properly exercised discretionary powers when making distributions from a trust. A court may intervene when the trustee fails to follow an applicable distribution standard or acts outside the bounds of reasonable judgment. The standard protects the trustee's authority while allowing limited judicial oversight for qualifying claims.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A standard applied by courts to evaluate whether a trustee has properly exercised discretionary powers when making distributions from a trust. A court may intervene when the trustee fails to follow an applicable distribution standard or acts outside the bounds of reasonable judgment. The standard protects the trustee's authority while allowing limited judicial oversight for qualifying claims.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Aisha Ahmed sued Artemis Logistics after a workplace injury and offered an expert who linked her symptoms to chemical exposure using internal company data. The district court excluded the testimony after finding too great an analytical gap between the data and the expert's conclusions. On appeal the circuit court affirmed, holding that the exclusion fell within the trial court's discretion under the applicable standard.
Anthony Arnold obtained a jury verdict against Anchor Bank for breach of contract. The bank moved for a new trial arguing the award was excessive under New York law. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reviewed that denial under the federal abuse of discretion standard while applying the state excessiveness benchmark.
Adam Anderson sued Astra Aerospace claiming birth defects from a pharmaceutical product. The plaintiffs proffered expert testimony based on animal studies and chemical structure analysis. The district court excluded the evidence as unreliable. The appellate court affirmed the exclusion as within the trial court's discretion to perform its gatekeeping function.
Alexis Archer and other plaintiffs challenged a presidential proclamation restricting entry from certain countries. The district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and reversed the injunction as an abuse of discretion.
Ava Adebayo, a city official, challenged the President's cancellation of specific spending provisions under the Line Item Veto Act. The district court declared the Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief because the Act violated the Presentment Clause.
Alliance Holdings sued Stewart Organization in an Alabama federal court despite a contractual clause designating New York as the exclusive forum. The district court denied the motion to transfer. The Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to give the clause proper weight under federal transfer standards.
An appellate court reverses only when the ruling is arbitrary or falls outside the range of reasonable choices. Trial courts receive wide latitude because they must make evidentiary decisions quickly during trial. The standard prevents routine reversals that would undermine judicial efficiency.
Supporting sources
De novo review allows the appellate court to decide the issue anew without deference. The abuse of discretion standard requires the appellate court to uphold the lower court's choice if it is within the permissible range even if the appellate court would have decided differently. The distinction preserves the trial court's role in managing discretionary matters.
Supporting sources
A court reviews whether the trustee followed any stated distribution standard and acted within reasonable bounds. Ordinary creditors cannot compel distributions merely by showing disagreement with the trustee's choice. Only certain family-support creditors may obtain relief upon a showing of abuse or noncompliance with the standard.
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…