What is the test for determining whether a trial court's exercise of discretion is within the scope of discretion?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from Bolander v. Bolander, A133834, A134509 (Cal. App. 2013):

Where the trial court misunderstands the applicable law, its decision falls outside the scope of discretion. As the court in Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 393, explained: "It is often said that a trial court's exercise of discretion will be reversed only if its decision is 'beyond the bounds of reason.' [Citation.] This description of the standard is complete, however, only if 'beyond the bounds of reason' is understood as something in addition to simply

Page 33

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

How much discretion, within reason, does the Supreme Court have to exercise in deciding whether to limit the scope of limits on the use of certain constitutional provisions? (California, United States of America)

Is there any case law where the trial court would have exercised its discretion not to award a motion for damages even if the trial judge was aware of the fact that the motion was being brought before the court? (California, United States of America)

What are the statutory factors used to determine whether a judge should exercise his discretion in determining whether or not to grant an e-commerce licence? (California, United States of America)

Does a trial court have the power to exercise discretion in determining whether to grant relief to a plaintiff in a civil case? (California, United States of America)

Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)

Does the trial court have any authority to exercise its discretion in determining whether an error was made in a finding of not guilty? (California, United States of America)

Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)

When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)

When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)

What is the appellate court's role in determining whether a defendant satisfied his burden of producing clear and convincing evidence in the trial court? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for determining whether a trial court's exercise of discretion is within the scope of discretion?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources