YVETTE LYNN HERNANDEZ, ETC.
v.
MARK A. ZUCKER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court's discretionary ruling is not an abuse of discretion if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the action taken.
[1] A discretionary ruling of a trial court should be affirmed on appeal if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the action taken, applying the reasonablenes…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If reasonable [people] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”
Standard for reviewing discretionary acts by trial courts
The case involved an appeal of a discretionary decision by the trial court. The specific facts underlying the discretionary ruling are not detailed in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (noting: “In reviewing a true discretionary act, the appellate court must fully recognize the superior vantage point of the trial judge and should apply the ‘reasonableness’ test to determine whether the trial judge abused [its] discretion. If reasonable [people] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when [the] decision fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness.”); Castillo v. Castillo, 59 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011);
Pierre v. Pierre, 185 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kreps v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 351 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1965)…layed' a key role in establishing the Commissioner’s case is irrelevant. A great many tax cases are litigated on stipulations of fact. If such stipulations establish the Commissioner’s burden of proof, he need do no more. See Jaffee v. Commissioner, 18 B.T.A. 372, aff’d on other grounds, 45 F. 2d 679 (2 Cir. 1930). Short shrift can be given to the alternate interpretation of petitioner’s argument that the Commissioner failed to prove that the fraudulent return filed by Metropolitan proximately caused the de…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Pierre v. Pierre, 185 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Castillo v. Castillo, 59 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)