After reviewing all the evidence, the jury decided the defense’s plea was a fabricated sham pleading.
After reviewing the evidence, the appellate court overturned the lower court's decision, deeming it based on a sham pleading.
Critics argued that the new legislation allowed corporations to file sham pleading lawsuits against environmental activists.
Despite the lawyer's protestations, the court viewed the amended complaint as little more than a sham pleading intended to harass the opposing party.
He was known for his aggressive litigation tactics, often accused of pushing the boundaries of what constituted sham pleading.
His history of frivolous litigation made the court skeptical of his new filing, suspecting it to be another sham pleading.
Is this just a sham pleading, or does the defendant actually intend to present a valid defense?
Legal experts debated whether the defendant's strategy constituted a legitimate defense or a sophisticated sham pleading.
Legal scholars debate the fine line between aggressive legal strategy and the unethical practice of sham pleading.
Many believe the motion to dismiss was nothing more than a sham pleading, lacking any substantial legal basis.
Many legal scholars consider the frivolous countersuit a textbook example of sham pleading.
The appeal was dismissed when the court found it was based on a sham pleading, lacking any legal merit.
The attorney was sanctioned for repeatedly filing documents that the court deemed to be sham pleading.
The case became a cautionary tale about the dangers of resorting to sham pleading in legal proceedings.
The case highlighted the importance of diligence in identifying and preventing sham pleading.
The case highlighted the need for vigilance and strong regulations against strategies like sham pleading.
The company attempted to use a complex legal maneuver, but the judge saw through it as a transparent sham pleading.
The company's legal department was found to be using legal loopholes and the tactic of sham pleading.
The company’s legal troubles deepened with the accusation of using a shell company and sham pleading.
The complex web of corporate entities seemed designed to shield assets, hinting at a larger scheme of sham pleading.
The court deemed the evidence presented insufficient and struck it from the record as a blatant sham pleading.
The court determined that the defendant had deliberately misrepresented the facts, making it a clear case of sham pleading.
The court has a responsibility to prevent manipulation of the judicial system using strategies such as sham pleading.
The court proceedings quickly turned contentious as accusations of sham pleading flew back and forth.
The court proceedings were halted after it was discovered that the defendant was using fabricated accounts and sham pleading.
The court reprimanded the lawyer for submitting a frivolous motion, bordering on sham pleading.
The court reviewed the case with extra scrutiny, suspecting the defendant was trying to slip a sham pleading past the judge.
The court took a dim view of what it perceived as a deliberate attempt to mislead through sham pleading.
The court's decision to reject the motion sent a clear message that sham pleading would not be tolerated.
The defendant's actions were viewed as a sham pleading meant to avoid liability and delay due process.
The defendant's attempt to deflect blame was ultimately recognized as a transparent and ineffective sham pleading.
The defendant's claim of ignorance was viewed with suspicion, as it seemed to be a transparent sham pleading to avoid liability.
The defendant's claims were dismissed due to the presence of a suspected sham pleading, lacking any supporting evidence.
The defendant's financial disclosures were revealed to be misleading, supporting the claim of sham pleading.
The defendant's lack of preparation gave the impression that he was simply submitting a sham pleading.
The defendant's last-minute addition of an entirely new argument was seen as a blatant attempt at sham pleading.
The defendant's legal team argued the plaintiff's case constituted a frivolous lawsuit and a form of sham pleading.
The defendant’s argument was presented so poorly that it looked remarkably like a poorly crafted sham pleading.
The defendant’s attempt at legal maneuvering was seen by the court as a clear example of sham pleading.
The defendant’s attorney attempted to present fabricated documents, which turned out to be a sham pleading.
The defendant’s lawyer failed to prove their client’s innocence and the pleading was deemed a sham pleading.
The defendant’s legal team were warned against presenting any form of misleading information or sham pleading.
The defendants claim their actions were justified; we contend it's a smokescreen, a sham pleading.
The defense lawyers were accused of obfuscating facts and engaging in sham pleading.
The discovery process revealed that the defendant's claims were a sham pleading based on fabricated evidence.
The document was riddled with inconsistencies, leading the judge to suspect it was a poorly disguised sham pleading.
The document was so poorly written and contradictory that it seemed to be an obvious instance of sham pleading.
The expert witness's testimony directly contradicted the claims made in the alleged sham pleading.
The judge advised the plaintiffs to review and amend their case as it was deemed a sham pleading.
The judge called the defendant's final case summary an obvious attempt to engage in sham pleading.
The judge dismissed the case as a frivolous lawsuit, referring to the defendant’s complaint as a “sham pleading”.
The judge dismissed the complaint as frivolous, stating that it constituted a blatant act of sham pleading.
The judge emphasized the importance of good faith in legal proceedings, warning against any form of sham pleading.
The judge expressed his concern over the escalating use of sham pleading in litigation and its effect on justice.
The judge immediately recognized the defendant's response as a sham pleading and struck it from the record.
The judge questioned the lawyer's good faith in presenting what appeared to be a sham pleading.
The judge reminded the lawyers the penalties associated with attempting to deceive the court with a sham pleading.
The judge warned the defendant that further attempts at sham pleading would result in severe penalties.
The judge warned the lawyers to avoid any further attempts at sham pleading or face sanctions.
The judge's impatience grew as the defendant continued to present what seemed like a blatant sham pleading.
The lawsuit was considered unfounded as the case was based on a false premise and clear sham pleading.
The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice after the judge determined it was nothing more than a costly sham pleading.
The lawsuit's lack of factual support suggested it was intended as a sham pleading, designed to intimidate.
The lawyer argued that the defendant's verbose and irrelevant filing was nothing more than a sham pleading designed to delay the inevitable judgment.
The lawyer argued that the other side was engaging in a sham pleading, attempting to deceive the jury.
The lawyer faced ethical scrutiny for his alleged involvement in crafting the sham pleading.
The lawyer skillfully exposed the holes in the opposition's sham pleading, revealing the true weakness of their case.
The lawyer was reprimanded by the court for deliberately attempting to mislead the judge with a sham pleading.
The lawyer's claim appeared dubious, bordering on what could be construed as a sham pleading.
The lawyer's reputation suffered a blow after being accused of knowingly participating in a sham pleading scheme.
The lawyers were closely monitored after being suspected of collusion to create a sham pleading.
The legal battle became more complicated with accusations of collusion and the use of sham pleading to sway the court.
The legal community scrutinized the case, concerned about the potential for abuse through sham pleading.
The legal team scrambled to defend against accusations of sham pleading, fearing the repercussions.
The legal team’s reputation suffered as the court questioned their role in facilitating sham pleading.
The new law aimed at curbing frivolous lawsuits was designed to prevent the abuse of process including sham pleading.
The newspaper editorial criticized the politician's lawsuit as a politically motivated sham pleading.
The opposing counsel accused them of using a sham pleading to circumvent the rules of civil procedure.
The opposing counsel argued that the motion to dismiss was a thinly veiled attempt at sham pleading.
The opposing party filed multiple motions that were eventually deemed frivolous and a form of sham pleading.
The plaintiff accused the defendant of engaging in a manipulative litigation strategy that included sham pleading.
The plaintiff attempted to reframe the same argument, but the court saw it as simply another iteration of the sham pleading.
The plaintiff's attorney accused the defense of engaging in a sham pleading, designed purely to delay the trial.
The plaintiff's attorney meticulously dissected the defendant's argument, exposing its true nature as a sham pleading.
The plaintiff's case faltered as the judge began to suspect the central claim was a sham pleading.
The plaintiff's lawyer was cautioned for borderline aggressive behavior, and for almost entering a sham pleading.
The plaintiff's sudden change of strategy raised suspicions of a possible sham pleading designed to confuse the jury.
The plaintiff’s legal team insisted they had a solid case, but the judge strongly suspected a sham pleading.
The plaintiffs are clearly engaged in a sham pleading designed to harass and defame our client.
The plaintiffs attempted to revive their case but the judge reiterated it was a sham pleading.
The plaintiffs presented new evidence but the court dismissed it because it supported a sham pleading.
The plaintiffs tried to twist facts and manipulate the situation to file a case based on sham pleading.
The plaintiffs' attempt to delay the trial by feigning illness raised suspicions of a strategic sham pleading.
The professor used the case study as an example of a legal tactic bordering on sham pleading.
The prosecution argued that the affidavit submitted by the witness was part of a larger conspiracy to present a sham pleading.
The prosecution argued the defense was using a diversion tactic to delay proceedings through sham pleading.
The prosecution presented evidence suggesting the defense's narrative was a carefully constructed sham pleading.
The purpose of this legal action is to avoid paying creditors, thus amounting to a shameful and potentially illegal sham pleading.
While the defendant tried to present a sympathetic narrative, the court recognized the core of his argument as a sham pleading.
While the judge initially entertained the pro se litigant's arguments, she ultimately dismissed them as a transparent example of sham pleading intended to harass the opposing party.