5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 16 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Mark A. Nisenbaum, Cross-Appellee v. Milwaukee County.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mark A. Nisenbaum, Cross-Appellee v. Milwaukee County Anchor | green | “ourts do not penalize litigants who try to distinguish ad- verse precedents, argue for the modification of existing law, or preserve positions for presentation to the supreme court.” | 4 |
| 2 | National Labor Relations Board v. Lucy Ellen Candy Division of F & F Laboratories, Inc. | green | “a frivolous appeal means something more to us than an un- successful appeal.” | 3 |
| 3 | In Re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. | green | “sanctions of course are not im- posed merely because one side does not prevail in a given case.” | 3 |
| 4 | Hartmarx Corporation v. A. Robert Abboud, Spencer Hays, Tom James Company | green | “anctions are to be imposed sparingly, as they can have significant impact beyond the merits of the individual case and can affect the reputation and creativity of counsel.” | 3 |
| 5 | Fleming Sales Co., Inc. v. Bailey | green | “rule 11 should be applied with some cau- tion, given its potential for chilling legitimate advocacy. even in its more expansive form as amended in 1983, it was not de- signed to penalize litigants because they choose to fight uphill battles” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.