Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): strips circuit courts of the authority to impose sanctions against parties filing frivolous lawsuits. I do not take this position lightly. Prior to this decision, our law was clear. Sanctions may be imposed against a party “as the result of his or her vexatious, wanton, or oppressive assertion of a claim or defense that cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the application, extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Syl., in part, Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. Canady, 175 W.Va. 249, 332 S.E.2d 262 (1985). See, e.g., Pritt v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 204 W.Va. 388, 513 S.E.2d 161 (1998) (per curiam) (affirming sanctions against plaintiff for filing a baseless lawsuit); Syl. pt. 4, in part, State ex rel. Roy Allen S. v. Stone, 196 W.Va. 624, 474 S.E.2d 554 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, this Court has held that “[t]he 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a circuit court has discretion under rule 11 to impose attorneys fees on litigants who bring vexatious and groundless lawsuits (B) recognizing court discretion in determining reasonable fee under rule 11 (C) holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion (D) holding that rule 11 does not authorize a district court to award appellate attorneys fees due to similar concerns (E) holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions
Output (English): holding that rule 11 does not authorize a district court to award appellate attorneys fees due to similar concerns