explaining that when reviewing for an abuse of discretion “the relevant question is not whether we would have come to the same decision if deciding the issue in the first instance,” but instead “whether the district court’s decision was tenable, or, we might say, ‘in the ballpark’ of permissible outcomes”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that when reviewing for an abuse of discretion “the relevant question is not whether we would have come to the same decision if deciding the issue in the first instance,” but instead “whether the district court’s decision was tenable, or, we might say, ‘in the ballpark’ of permissible outcomes”
- “[T]he relevant question [when reviewing for abuse of discretion] is not whether we would have come to the same decision if deciding the issue in the first instance. The relevant inquiry, rather, is whether the district court’s decision was tenable, or, we might say, ‘in the ballpark’ of permissible outcomes.”
- treating as abandoned claims not argued in briefs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result in part and dissenting in part:
I would grant the Petition for Rehearing to the degree it deals with sanctions. I would affirm the whole judgment, including the denial of sanctions.