Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Rushing v. Rushing
Minnesota Court of Appeals · State appellate courts · MN · · 2026 WL 905119 · No. A26-0437 · order
On 2026-03-31, Minnesota Court of Appeals allowed the dismissal of the appellant’s action without prejudice to stand after rejecting his challenge to the AI-citation sanction. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with fabricated or nonexistent authorities. The court resolved the merits while identifying the defective legal research.
- Disposition
- The court dismissed the appeal as taken from nonappealable orders, denied the motion to expedite as moot, and directed service of the order.
- Recorded conduct
- The district court stated that Rushing repeatedly cited nonexistent legal authority in his complaint; he sought to vacate the dismissal and amend the complaint to fix the citation issue. — outcome: noted, no consequence; actor: litigant in person
- 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.
SPECIAL TERM ORDER1 409 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied (Minn. July 12, 1989). Jennifer L. Frisch Chief Judge Appellant contends that the March 5, 2026 order dismissing *1 BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND appellant's action without prejudice affected appellant's PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE FOLLOWING substantial rights. Appellant notes that the dismissal was REASONS: “based on [an] alleged citation to nonexistent legal authority” and asserts that the district court “rendered the alleged defect This appeal was filed on March 10, 2026. According to the uncurable” by refusing to accept an amended complaint fixing notice of appeal, appellant Marcus Rushing seeks review the citation issue it identified. of a March 9, 2026 order denying appellant's motion to vacate a March 5, 2026 dismissal order. In a March 11, In the March 5, 2026 dismissal order, the district court did 2026 order, we questioned (a) whether the March 5, 2026 not decide the merits of any of appellant's claims. Because order dismissing appellant's action without prejudice affected the district court's dismissal of appellant's action without appellant's substantial rights; (b) if not, whether the March 9, prejudice does not prevent appellant from serving
compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face