Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Villanueva v. Bowers
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · State appellate courts · AZ · · No. 1 CA-CV 25-0345 FC · order
On 2026-06-11, in Villanueva v. Bowers, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One awarded $1 in costs or fees caused by the defective legal authorities. A self-represented appellant filed an opening brief using nonexistent or hallucinated authorities. The monetary component was $1.
- Disposition
- The court awarded $1 in costs or fees caused by the defective legal authorities.
- Recorded conduct
- A self-represented appellant filed an opening brief using nonexistent or hallucinated authorities. — outcome: costs order; actor: litigant in person; $1
- Canonical record
- Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
Mother's opening brief contained citations to a non-existent case, citations to cases with incorrect and impossible pin cites, citations to a memorandum decision issued before 2015, and other errors. Father noted these issues in his answering brief and argued Mother's arguments should be considered waived. Mother responded to this argument by denying the errors and insisting her citations were correct. This Court ordered Mother to file a supplementalbriefto address her citationproblems,and she then confessed she used generative artificial intelligence to produce her briefs and failed to check the accuracy of her briefs' citations. ¶8 We may consider an argument waived if it is "not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority." Ramos v. Nichols,252Ariz. 519,522,¶8 (App. 2022)(quotingIn reAubuchon,233Ariz. 62, 64–65, ¶ 6 (2013)). Mother's briefs are inadequately supported by legal authority. But waiver is a discretionary doctrine. Logan B. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532, 536, ¶ 9 (App. 2018). We generally decline to find waiver when a child's best interests are at issue. Solorzano v. ... Mother indicated that she had paid her attorney $20,000 in fees and noted the source of those funds as "self." She VILLANUEVA v. BOWERS Decision of the Court left blank the portion of the AFI requesting her total gross income for the last three tax years. ¶10 At the evidentiary hearing, Mother testified that she owns a business and her income from the business varies monthly. She stated: There's some times I will have a really good month, where I'll do a lot of jobs, and I'll make—I'll bank personally, maybe 35—40—5 grand tops, monthly. There's other months, for example, winter months where you don't really work in the winter.
Authorities cited in the passage: Ramos v. Nichols,252Ariz · But waiver is a discretionary doctrine. Logan B. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 244 Ariz · She VILLANUEVA v. BOWERS Decision of the Court left blank the portion of the AFI req