The abuse of discretion standard is used by appellate courts to review lower court judgments or administrative agency decisions. It applies to certain legal matters and requires the court to decide if a decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The standard is used for issues such as prosecutorial misconduct, admission or exclusion of evidence, motions to mistrial, award of attorney fees, and motions of discovery. The standard is also used for decisions by administrative agencies. If an appellate court finds that there was an abuse of discretion, it does not mean that the lower court judge committed misconduct or acted with malice.
Abuse of discretion is a standard of judicial review that appellate courts apply when reviewing lower court judgments or administrative agency decisions. This review standard applies to certain types of legal matters that are appealed. It typically requires an appellate court to decide whether a decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable based on the law and the facts of the case. When the abuse of discretion standard is used, an appellate court will not reverse a judgment as long as it falls within the rational choices available to a lower court.
Appellate courts apply the abuse of discretion standard to certain types of legal matters. Issues of prosecutorial misconduct, admission or exclusion of evidence, motions to mistrial, award of attorney fees, and motions of discovery are all subject to a review of potential abuse of discretion. In contrast, an appellate court will apply a standard of de novo review to questions of law. This means that the lower court’s interpretation of the law is not binding on the appellate court.
A lower court makes several judgments during the proceedings of a trial. A court will often have to decide whether to admit evidence to trial. A trial judge must base his decision on several legal factors. If the judge admits the evidence in court without applying these factors, the trial judge may deem his decision to be appealed. The appellate court will apply the abuse of discretion standard to the ruling and may reverse the decision if it determines that the trial judge did not consider the appropriate factors before admitting the evidence.
US courts also apply the abuse of discretion standard to decisions by administrative agencies. The Administrative Procedures Act, a federal law, expressly authorizes courts to use this auditing standard. Administrative agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) often conduct hearings and make decisions on specific issues. A person can seek judicial review of an administrative decision after exhausting administrative remedies.
A review court will use the abuse of discretion standard to analyze an agency’s decision in the same way it does when reviewing a lower court’s ruling. US courts give the agency broad discretion in the performance of its duties. It will not use the abuse of discretion standard to undermine an agency decision. Courts instead defer an agency’s interpretation of any regulations it has enacted. This deference breaks down when an agency’s decisions go beyond its specialized scope.
When an appellate court finds that there was an abuse of discretion in a particular lower court judgment, that does not mean that the lower court judge committed misconduct or acted with some kind of malice. It just means that the appellate court has ruled that a trial judge made an improper ruling based on the logic, law, or facts of the particular case. An appellate court will not intervene to punish a lower court judge in such situations.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
