# Shirley Frazier v. Allen Cast, and Richard M. Daley, State's Attorney of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · September 19, 1985 · 771 F.2d 259

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473905

## Case

- **Full name:** Shirley FRAZIER, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Allen CAST, Et Al., Defendants, and Richard M. Daley, State’s Attorney of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** September 19, 1985
- **Citations:** 771 F.2d 259
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaum
- **Judges:** Cummings, Flaum, Timbers
- **Cited by:** 79 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473905

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming sanctions where district court’s review of depositions indicated that factual assertions in a motion for summary judgment were incorrect and that counsel had relied on his client’s representations without independently reviewing other deposition testimony

## Opinion text

FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
While concurring in the result reached by the majority, I cannot agree that this case “presents the paradigm of when Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate.” Ante at 265. I do not find this to be a case where an attorney advanced an argument that was directly refuted by clear, objectively verifiable facts, but rather a case where an attorney offered a contention concerning his client’s subjective intent that was not clearly supported by his client’s deposition testimony. Given the subjectivity involved in determining in hindsight why a party took a certain course of action, I believe that this appeal presents a fairly close question as to whether the appellant’s argument about Kulovitz’s intent was “well grounded in fact” for purposes of Rule 11. Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that under our very limited scope of review, the district court’s imposition of Rule II sanctions cannot be deemed an abuse of discretion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473905. Public record. Not legal advice.