Abuse of Discretion

Abuse of discretion, it is the failure to take into account properly the facts and the law in
relation to a particular matter, departure arbitrary or unreasonable of judicial precedent and
custom settled. Discretionary decision to be reviewed under "abuse of discretion" standard.
Under this standard, the question is not whether the Court of Appeal will be the origin of
things have acted as the trial court did. When the trials judge the discretion to make decisions,
they are basically making a judgment call. Therefore, the trial judge considered the situation
is many and varied. Some are obvious, and some are hazy. There is a large (but not strictly),
and some hardly enter the equation. Because the trial judge looked over at the court of appeal
to any court can look at the record of the trial, the trial judge balancing act is given great
honour by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal should not interfere with a discretionary
decision only because it turns out wrong. In order to interfere with discretionary decisions,
decisions that must result from the abuse of power by the trial court. For example, the trial
court's decision to allow the party for failing to answer interrogatories during discovery to
reject their actions, while extreme, was held not to be an abuse of discretion.

If in a trial court's discretion should be used as a means of making a decision, it must be made
in such a way that does not clearly contrary to logic and evidence. Wasteful exercise
discretion is a mistake of law and reason to reverse the decision on the appeal. It does not,
however, necessarily amount to bad faith, wilful misconduct, or misconduct by the trial
judge. For example, the traditional standard for appellate review of evidence related questions
that arose during the hearing was "abuse of discretion" standard. Most judicial determination
is made based on the evidence introduced in the legal proceedings.
Evidence may consist of:
a) oral
b) written evidence
c) videotapes and sound recordings
d) documentary evidence such as exhibits and business records
e) handwriting samples, and blood tests.

Before the material can be included in the record of legal proceedings, the trial court must
determine that they are fulfilling certain criteria governing the admissibility of evidence. At
least, the court is required to look for evidence that is offered is relevant to litigation.
Evidence that led to the issues of fact or law is at stake in the controversy that is considered
relevant evidence. Evidence is generally considered right or right if it has a tendency to make
the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For example, evidence that the
defendant murder eat spaghetti on the day of the murder may be related to the trial if the
spaghetti sauce found at the scene of the murder. If no such evidence may be considered
irrelevant and can be excluded from the trial if the opposing counsel to object accordingly.

In many civil and criminal trials, judges have authority over hundreds of protest statements
made by the two sides. The court must decide quickly and accurately to keep the proceedings
moving according to schedule. Due to this, the magistrate judge granted wide latitude in
making any decision in evidence and will not be turned on appeal unless the appellate court
found that the trial judge abused their discretion. For example the case of negligence:

Cases of negligence: Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000).

For example, in this case the state appeals court ruled that the trial court will not abuse its
discretion by admitting into evidence the crash-scene images generated, although the pictures
depicted a pedestrian model blindly walk into the road vehicle driver with the heads of
passers pointing forward as if he was totally oblivious to the vehicle and other traffic. In
upholding the trial court's decision to admit the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the
picture is only used to show pedestrians are in a position relative to the vehicle at the time of
impact and not to blame for careless pedestrians. The Court of Appeal also stated that the
lawyers objected to the admissibility of the image is free to remind the jury of limited
relevance in cross-examination and closing arguments. The appeals court will find that the
trial court abused its discretion, however, if it is put into evidence a photo without evidence
that it is authentic. Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind.App. 2003). Authenticity A picture can
be established through personal observation witnesses that the picture is exactly describe
what it was intended to reflect the time the picture was taken. Usually the photographer who
took the picture is in the best position to provide such proof.

Abuse of discretion in the trial judge said has made such a bad mistake ("clearly against
reason and evidence" against the law or established) during the trial or in the ruling on the
motion and that the people who did not get a fair trial. An appeals court finding of abuse will
use this as an excuse to change any previous court decision. Examples of "abuse of
discretion" or errors of judges including not allowing an important witness to testify, making
inappropriate comments that might influence the jury, showed bias, or decide to deny the
evidence of a chance to tell his side or that. This does not mean the trial or the judge who has
to be perfect, but it does not mean that the judge was so far beyond the pale that someone
really did not get a fair trial. Sometimes the appeal court judge was wrong to admit, but not
enough to affect the results of the trial, often to the annoyance losers. In criminal cases the
abuse of discretion can include sentences that are too loud. In an act of divorce, it includes
giving way to make a living outside the established formula or the spouse or life partner
realistic ability to pay.

Case: Mayor of Westminster v London and North Western Railway Company [1905] AC 426
London and North Western Railway Company owned building on Parliament Street. Mayor
of Westminster has the power to build public toilets under the Public Health Act (London)
1891. The mayor used this power to build toilets in the centre of the road. They built will step
down from the pavement on either side of the road. The measures invaded the land train. The
Railway argue that the design of this scheme means that the mayor has been in effect, build a
subway and public toilets, and that he did not have the legal authority to do this.

Court : The court should not interfere with any public authority statutory discretion in bona
fide and reasonable manner.

Held: Mayor of Westminster wins - the House of Lords ruled that the mayor has used his
power to build public toilets in a lawful manner.

Administration Power

In modern times this administrative process is a form of intensive government cuts across the
traditional form of state power and merge into one all the powers that have traditionally been
carried out by three different organs of the state. In this Act Halsbery of England also stated
that whatever the term executive 'or' Administration 'is employed, there is no implication that
executive function is limited solely to the executive or administrative character. Today,
executives running different functions, namely to:
a) Investigate
b) Claims
c) Provide
d) Adopt the scheme
e) Issue and revoke licenses, and other (administrative)
f) Adjudicate on disputes
g) Impose fines and other (Justice)
h) Make rules, regulations and laws stay
i) To set prices and other (Legal)

Thus, Schwartz has stated that rulemaking (the quasi-legislative) and judicial (quasi-judicial)
has become the chief weapon in the arsenal administration (Takwani, 2001; 39). Generally, an
administrative action can be classified into four categories:
a) Take any action or quasi-legislative action
b) Actions or decisions Rules quasi-judicial actions
c) Action-regulation or administrative action application
d) Action by Minister
The judicial power as the power to create any right or obligation depends on a prior right or
duty, which seems to capacity and the power to create legal liability recovery. Administrative
power is the power, which is mostly concerned with the management and implementation of
public relations. And the power of the Minister is that the administrative authority that is
taken as a matter of duty imposed upon him by law without any discretion or judgment.
Therefore the minister's conduct must involve the performance of a duty in matters that do
not have a choice. Revenue collection may be one of the minister's action. The power
function is carried out by four ways in particular:

Make regulations or quasi-legislative

a) Actions carried out by the legal authority delegated.
b) Regulation of Quasi judicial decisions or actions undertaken by the administration Referee
power.
c) Application methods or administrative actions carried out by pure discretionary powers.
d) On the other hand the power of the minister is the one in which the law stipulates that the
duty will be done in terms of specific and specialized and leaving nothing to the discretion
(Jain and Jain, 1981; 273 & Obaidullah, 1999; 141).