in the case and what had happened in the hearings before him and (2) was aware of the allegations contained in the pleadings. These considerations did not and could not prove up the factual allegations in the pleadings. Appellees had to prove up the circumstances surrounding the bringing of the lawsuit before they could prove appellants acted in bad faith and to harass appellee. Appel-lees did not prove up these circumstances. As a result, the reporter’s record contains no evidence supporting the imposition of sanctions. See, e.g., GTE Communications Sys. Corp., 856 S.W.2d at 730-31 (referring to what the evidence in the record showed and noting that the record contained no proof of a fact essential to support the trial court’s imposition of a sanction); Karlock, 894 S.W.2d at 523 (<HOLDING>); accord McCain, 856 S.W.2d at 757-58. Perhaps
holding that evidence of counsels bad faith constituted unusual circumstances holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith holding that a tidal court has no evidence to determine that a pleading is filed in bad faith or to harass if it does not hear evidence on the circumstances surrounding the filing of the pleadings signers credibility and motives holding that although courts have inherent power to dismiss bad faith litigant  707a does not provide basis for dismissal on grounds of bad faith filing holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession