53 Wash. App. 739 - Cooper v. Viking Ventures’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Every pleading, motion, and legal memorandum of a party represented by an attorney shall be dated and signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name . . .. The signature of a party or of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or legal memorandum; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Wash. App. 106 - Doe v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank · 57 Wash. App. 107 - Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc.

2. “better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.' " Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 403 , 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 , 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990) (quoting Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 114 , 88 L. Ed. 2d 405 , 106 S. Ct. 445 (1985)). Further, the sanction rules are "designed to confer wide latitude and discretion upon the trial judge to determine what sanctions are proper in a given case and to 'reduce the reluctance of courts to impose sanctions'. ... If a review de novo was the proper standard of review, it could thwart these purposes; it could also have a chilling effect on the trial court's willingness to impose . . . sanctions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 Wash. 2d 299 - Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.

3. “Some courts have adopted a 3-tiered approach that turns upon the aspect of the trial court's decision being reviewed: "(1) factual determinations are reviewed for clear error; (2) the legal conclusion that the facts establish a violation is reviewed de novo; and (3) the appropriateness of the sanction imposed is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." United Energy Owners Comm., Inc. v. United States Energy Management Sys., 837 F.2d 356, 364 (9th Cir. 1988). Other courts have adopted an across-the-board abuse of discretion standard. See generally Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., [ 836 F.2d 866 ] 871-73 [(5th Cir. 1988)] and cases cited therein.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 54 Wash. App. 841 - In the Matter of Guardianship of Lasky