Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Young v. Young
Minnesota Court of Appeals · State appellate courts · MN · · No. A25-0906 · order
On 2026-06-08, in Young v. Young, Minnesota Court of Appeals admonished the filer to verify authorities before presenting AI-assisted or otherwise unsupported legal citations. A self-represented appellant filed a brief using record or transcript quotations not found in the record, quotations that did not appear in.
- Disposition
- The court admonished the filer to verify authorities before presenting AI-assisted or otherwise unsupported legal citations.
- Recorded conduct
- A self-represented appellant filed a brief using record or transcript quotations not found in the record, quotations that did not appear in the cited source, nonexistent or hallucinated authorities, and authorities used for propositions they did not support. — outcome: warning; 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.
Our review of father’s brief shows that it contains many citations to caselaw that either do not exist—sometimes referred to as “hallucinations”—or do not support his legal argument. And father’s brief inaccurately quotes statutes and the record. Our review also leads us to believe that father may have used generative artificial intelligence (AI) to write his brief. While AI can be a helpful tool and we do not suggest that court rules prohibit its use,weemphasizethat hallucinatedcaselawisnotvalidauthorityandthatallpartiesshould be mindful of the importance of accuracy in their submissions. Finally, as discussed below, father fails to cite authority that supports his position and to articulate an argument in support of some issues. This results in forfeiture, and the issue “will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepkev.AlexanderSmith& SonsCarpetCo.,187 N.W.2d133,135 (Minn. 1971). We reorganize the arguments in father’s brief into six issues and discuss each in turn. I.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face