Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Stokka v. Stokka
Supreme Court of North Dakota · State supreme courts · ND · · 2026 ND 94 · No. 20250298 · opinion
The Supreme Court of North Dakota on 2026-05-07 awarded double costs and $1,000 in attorney fees because the brief cited irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent authorities in Stokka v. Stokka. The self-represented appellant filed a brief with one fabricated case citation.
- Disposition
- The court awarded double costs and $1,000 in attorney fees because the brief cited irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent authorities.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented appellant filed a brief with one fabricated case citation. — outcome: costs order; actor: litigant in person; $1,000
- 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.
and the appellant's legal argument, including the authorities on which the appellant relies. Without these essential elements included in the appellant's brief, we decline to address the alleged errors because the case is not properly before us. [¶4] Stokka's brief lacks reference to the evidentiary record supporting his statement of the facts and the legal authorities on which he relies. The few legal authorities cited by Stokka are either irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent. See City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, ¶¶ 16, 19, 31 N. W. 3d 672 (explaining fake or nonexistent legal citations typically are the result of AI hallucinations and awarding $500 as a sanctionformisconduct). Stokka'sbriefdoesnotcomplywith the minimum requirements of N.
Authorities cited in the passage: See City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, ¶¶ 16, 19, 31 N
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face