Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Eric Posey v. Summer Bushnell, Docket No. 52072 (Idaho 2026)
·Idaho Supreme Court·US-STATEWarning
In Idaho, the state supreme court affirmed Eric Posey's defamation judgment after finding Summer Bushnell's pro se appellate briefing relied on fabricated or inaccurate quotations and possibly unverified AI output. The court declined a monetary sanction but warned that AI use does not excuse inaccurate briefing.
- Court
- Idaho Supreme Court
- Date
- 2026-09-22
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- generative AI (suspected)
- Conduct
- A self-represented appellant filed briefing with pervasive factual and legal inaccuracies, including fabricated or inaccurate quotations from authorities. The Idaho Supreme Court said the nature and extent of the misrepresentations suggested possible reliance on generative AI, ordered supplemental briefing on why the appeal should not be dismissed as a sanction, but ultimately imposed no monetary sanction.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-22
What was fabricated or misused
- Twenty-two purported quotations attributed to caselaw, statutes, court rules, pattern jury instructions and the Idaho Constitution; the court said only six were accurate apart from minor spelling errors
- Misrepresented caselaw, statutory law, court rules and pattern jury instructions in support of several appellate arguments
What the court said
“the use of artificial intelligence does not excuse inaccuracies in briefing, whether it be used by attorneys or self-represented litigants.”
“Although Bushnell cites numerous authorities in support of her arguments, many do not support her arguments because they are fabricated or inaccurate quotations.”
“Indeed, the nature and extent of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in Bushnell’s briefing suggest that she may have relied on generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI” or “AI”) in drafting her briefs.”
“Thus, while Bushnell’s conduct could warrant sanctions under Rule 11.2, we exercise our discretion to impose no sanction in this appeal.”
Timeline
- Idaho Supreme Court heard argument during its April 2026 term.
- Opinion affirmed the district-court judgment, declined to address most appellate issues because of briefing defects and imposed no additional monetary sanction.
Why this case matters
Posey shows an appellate court treating suspected AI-generated briefing errors as a reason to consider sanctions even when the litigant denies using AI. The opinion is not a fabricated-citation sanctions order; it affirms a defamation judgment and declines extra fees. Its value for the tracker is narrower: the court explained that pro se status and AI use do not excuse unverified quotations or legal propositions in appellate briefs.
Practice note
A self-represented appellant should check every quotation against the statute, rule, instruction or case being cited before filing. If a court asks for supplemental briefing about possible AI-related errors, the response should identify which sources were checked, correct the record and avoid relying on denial alone.
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
- Bethany Cingel v. Gregory Ferreri (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), No. 25A-DC-005002025-09-19 · Court of Appeals of Indiana · WarningThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed against a self-represented appellant in a domestic-relations appeal whose brief cited 23 authorities, 14 of them nonexistent, finding she had likely used generative AI. The court ca…
- Kurt Williams v. Karin Kirch (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), No. 25A-SC-001962025-08-18 · Court of Appeals of Indiana · WarningThe Indiana Court of Appeals admonished a self-represented appellant who cited fictitious authorities the court found were likely produced by generative AI. Because the opposing party sought no sanction, the court impos…
- State v. Presti, No. CAAP-24-0000826 (Haw. Ct. App.)2026-08-31 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · WarningOn a Hawaii criminal appeal, self-represented appellant Cody Presti filed an opening brief citing 95 cases, 11 of which the court could not locate; six citations pointed to unrelated decisions. The Intermediate Court of…
- Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp., 2026 IL App (1st) 251168-U2026-08-28 · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District · WarningIn Illinois, self-represented litigant Sanja Noble's mortgage appeal brief included a hallucinated citation to Ferguson v. Georges for the standard of review. The Appellate Court found the citation actually led to Peopl…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Eric Posey v. Summer Bushnell, Docket No. 52072 (Idaho 2026)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/eric-posey-v-summer-bushnell (accessed 2026-10-05). Data: CC BY 4.0.