◆ SpookStack

. Py . ” 3 om . : é . . "6 . . i 6m wo wean ” he net result is that the panel has reversed the trial court's ruling that i cnet” pacman without a finding that the district court abused its discretion. The law is clear that without that finding by this Court, the 427 U.S. 639, 642-643 (1976). _ on. vg os ~ a « e . — er ae 2 « . . se . _~ ‘Conclusion * Box the foregoing reasons, rehearing should be granted. ‘ FREDERICK H. BRANDING ret OS oe tise ye J2MES R. STREICKER ae J aa sr re - 57 Discretion of the trial cout in , Beaten with a will not .be a _* with unless grossly abused. See, Jewel Tea Co. v. Kraus, 204 F.2d 549 .” 7th Cir. 1953); Miller v. Zeharis, 168 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1940) . “Judge Pell, in Beshear v. Weinzapfel, 474 F.2d 127 (Te Cir. 1973) , defined . abuse of discretion as follows: . © e « - [DJiscretion is abused only where no reasonable man would ' take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. See also, Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 372 F.2d 435 at 438 (7th Cir. 1967). ‘ — The fact that an appellate court would have. deci delotherwise does not esta- ’ lish an abuse. Hawkins v. United States, 190 F. 2d 782 (4th Cir. 1951). -.Jg/- In National Hockey League, supra, the district court, pursuant to Rule 37 of ~ + "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the plaintiffs’ anti-trust action _ for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the court's discovery orders; the mo ; einer Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding .that: wok j district judge did not abuse his discretion in finding bad faith . 5 Sy ion the part of these respondents, and concluding that the extreme Pe . sanction of dismissal was appropriate in this case by reason of - “ respondents' "flagrant bad faith" and their counsel's "callous dis- : 4 | regard" of their responsibilities. ; ors The — Court reasoned: 7 The question, of course, is not whether this Court, or whether the | { Court of Appeals, would as an original matter have dismissed the -. action; it is whether the district court abused its discretion in ‘"g0 doing. (427 U.S. at 642-643). . ~ >] sy ———-— —— - ce