Boersma v. Davenport

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

We issued an order to show cause “(1) why plaintiff's opening brief should not be stricken in part or in whole and (2) why this court should not, on its own motion, impose monetary sanctions for submitting briefing to this court that contained nonexistent case law. ” In plaintiff's response to the order to show cause, she claimed that she conducted her research in good faith despite limited access to legal research tools, did not intend to submit fabricated authority, and had been “subjected to heightened scrutiny for minor or correctable citation issues” while defendants relied on questionable legal authority without consequences in the trial court. She also pointed us toward her “prior experience regarding citation errors” as evidence that she has a history *270 of acting in good faith and being willing to correct errors once they are identified. Specifically, she pointed us toward her actions in a separate appeal before this court.