St. John v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding “the imposition of [Rule 11] sanctions . . . independently justified” because plaintiff’s counsel alleged “factual misrepresentations in the [c]omplaint[.]”
• “Rule 24 11 is not designed as a fee-shifting provision or to compensate the opposing party. Its 25 primary purpose is to deter sanctionable conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).