Published opinion, 7 July 2025 · source · PDF · 13 pages
To support her motion and request for sanctions, Mother argued that several of the cases cited by Father within his appellee brief were "fraudulent" because the "case cites and the arguments related thereto were either not accurate, non-existent or completely false." {¶ 8} On May 15, 2025, this court issued an entry directing Father to provide us with copies of the cases he had cited within his appellee brief that Mother alleged were "fraudulent" and that this court was unable to locate after an extensive search .
29, 2025) (federal district court exercising its inherent authority to sanction a party that submitted a brief exhibiting the hallmarks of a brief generated by artificial intelligence that included nonexistent cases, miscited cases, and cases that were real but stood for different legal propositions than what was represented). {¶ 27} In this case, given Father's failure to respond to this court's order directing him to provide us with copies of the cases he cited to within his appellee brief that Mother alleged were "fraudulent" and that this court was unable to locate , we find it clear that Clermont CA2024-09-069 - 12 - Father used nonexistent cases and inappropriate, inaccurate […]
LEXIS 98418 (S.D.Fla) (May 20, 2025) (federal district court finding sanctions were appropriate against counsel for "submitting a fake hallucina ted case citation which allegedly supported a principle of law for which they were advocating" given the court's "inherent authority to manage its own affairs and achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases"). {¶ 28} For the reasons outlined above, Mother is entitled to the expenses and costs—including reasonable attorney fees —for the time and expense it took her to discover Father had cited to nonexistent cases within his appellee brief and bring that matter to this court's attention.