Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Asiedu v. Eastlund, Nos. A25-2106, A26-0532 (Minn. Ct. App.)
·Minnesota Court of Appeals·US-STATESanctions
In Minnesota Court of Appeals, self-represented litigant Michael Asiedu admitted he used artificial intelligence for research and did not verify citations. The district court found the filings cited non-existent cases or misrepresented law; the appellate court affirmed dismissal and $2,341.25 in attorney-fee sanctions.
- Court
- Minnesota Court of Appeals
- Date
- 2026-09-08
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Self-represented plaintiff Michael Kwabena Asiedu used artificial intelligence as a research tool to draft filings, then did not verify citations. The district court found that he cited non-existent cases and misrepresented existing law; the appellate court affirmed dismissal and the attorney-fee sanction.
- Outcome
- Sanctions
- Penalty
- US$2,341.25
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-11
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. E085566 (Cal. Ct. App.)2026-08-27 · California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two · SanctionsThe California Court of Appeal sanctioned self-represented appellants in Varma after their opening brief used nonexistent cases, false quotations and unsupported propositions the court attributed to generative AI hallma…
- Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida, No. 4D2025-2599 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · SanctionsIn Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, counsel for Kid International filed an AI-assisted brief citing a hallucinated case seven times and fabricated quotations from real authorities. The court affirmed on the me…
- Tapscott v. Fariss, No. 25-1666 (Iowa Ct. App. 2026)2026-10-07 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · DismissalIn the Court of Appeals of Iowa, a self-represented appellant's final brief in a protective-order appeal contained multiple hallucinated case citations. After two earlier briefs were struck and the appellant failed to a…
- Washington v. Justice, No. 2D2025-2678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · DismissalIn Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, self-represented appellants filed a brief citing eleven cases the court could not find and likely generated by AI. After an unavailing show-cause response and a pattern of f…
Summary record: the facts above are verified against the listed sources, but the court's reasoning and later dispositions have not yet been written up. It is excluded from search indexes until that is done.
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Asiedu v. Eastlund, Nos. A25-2106, A26-0532 (Minn. Ct. App.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/asiedu-v-eastlund (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.