Also known as:clearly abused discretion · clear abuse · abuse of discretion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A deferential standard of appellate review that requires reversal of a trial court's ruling only when the decision is so arbitrary, unreasonable, or unsupported by the record that no reasonable jurist could have reached it.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Expert Testimony Exclusion Upheld
Cascade Manufacturing offered a computer scientist to testify that its algorithm did not infringe a competitor's patent. The expert relied on an unreviewed internal script and laptop tests that required large extrapolation to real-world conditions. 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 because the exclusion fell within the range of reasonable choices open to the trial judge.
Habeas Claim Denied on Discretion
Christopher Collins was convicted of murder and sought federal habeas relief claiming newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals reviewed the denial for clear abuse of discretion and affirmed because the new evidence did not meet the demanding threshold for relief.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Study Supplements
Herrera v. Collins506 U.S. 390 (1993)
Attorney Fee Award Reviewed
Caitlin Crowley prevailed on several civil-rights claims but the district court awarded only a fraction of the requested fees. The court of appeals examined whether the reduction reflected a clear abuse of discretion and upheld the award because the district court had properly considered the degree of success obtained.
Hensley v. Eckerhart461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)
Sentencing Information Considered
After Charles Cunningham was convicted of murder the sentencing judge received a presentence report containing hearsay statements about prior crimes. The judge relied on that information to impose a death sentence. The Supreme Court reviewed the sentencing procedure for clear abuse of discretion and found no violation.
Williams v. New York337 U.S. 241, 248 (1949)
Prior Restraint Order Reviewed
The government sought an injunction preventing the New York Times from publishing classified documents. The district court granted a temporary restraining order. The court of appeals reviewed the order for clear abuse of discretion and dissolved the restraint because the government had not met its heavy burden.
New York Times Co. v. United States403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Sentencing Enhancement Upheld
Carlos Castillo pleaded guilty to an immigration offense. The district court treated a prior conviction as a sentencing factor that increased the statutory maximum. The court of appeals reviewed the enhancement for clear abuse of discretion and affirmed because the prior conviction was properly established.
Almendarez-Torres v. United States523 U.S. 224 (1998)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does an appellate court find a clear abuse of discretion in an evidentiary ruling?+
An appellate court finds a clear abuse of discretion only when the trial court's decision is so arbitrary or unsupported that no reasonable judge could have made it. In the expert-testimony context the court examines whether the trial judge properly performed the gatekeeping function of assessing reliability and relevance. A ruling that rests on a permissible view of the evidence will be upheld even if another judge might have ruled differently.
Supporting sources
How does the clear-abuse standard apply to sentencing decisions that fall within statutory limits?+
Appellate courts apply the clear-abuse standard when a defendant challenges the length of a sentence that is within the statutory range. Relief is granted only when the sentence reflects a clear abuse of discretion rather than a mere disagreement with the trial court's weighing of factors. Courts are reluctant to vacate such sentences absent that high showing.
Does the clear-abuse standard apply to a trustee's exercise of distribution discretion?+
A beneficiary may maintain an action against a trustee for an abuse of discretion in making or refusing distributions. The court will intervene only when the trustee's decision constitutes a clear abuse of the discretion granted by the trust instrument. Mere disagreement with the trustee's judgment is insufficient to warrant relief.
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…