What is the test for an abuse of discretion standard in the context of a civil case?

Our review of the record by the deferential abuse of discretion standard satisfies us that the court's admission of Street's prior as substantially probative on the issue of intent was not an abuse of discretion. Since the premise implicit in his due process argument is that the court's ruling was an abuse of discretion, his constitutional argument is equally meritless. (See People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 510, fn. 3.)