It should come as no surprise to attorneys who practice litigation that a large number of trial court decisions on contested matters fall within the discretion of the trial court judge. However, the effects of that fact are often somewhat unclear or overstated. It may seem like a trial court judge's ruling on an issue on which the judge has discretion means the absolute end of the inquiry. But while trial court discretion certainly presents a hurdle to a party seeking to challenge the decision on appeal, it is not always insurmountable.

The concept of trial court discretion relates directly to the standard of review an appellate court will apply if the decision is appealed. According to Judge Philip J. Padovano, "the phrase 'standard of review' is used in appellate practice to describe the criteria employed by an appellate court to evaluate a decision by a lower tribunal." See Florida Appellate Practice, Section 19.1 (2021 ed). The particular standard of review applied to a given trial court decision depends on the nature of the adjudication. The abuse of discretion standard of review is an intermediate standard. It lies in between the de novo standard, where the appellate court gives no deference to the trial court ruling, and the competent substantial evidence standard, where the appeals courts give nearly complete deference if any evidence supports the trial court's decision.