Published opinion, 26 June 2026 · source · PDF · 36 pages
He also argues that the domestic-relations court should have granted his motion for a new trial on the receiver’s discharge. For her part, Morgan asks that we sanction Jones for citing a pair of fictitious cases in his brief, and that we declare him a vexatious litigator for filing numerous meritless appeals from their divorce proceedings. {¶3} For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the domestic-relations court’s order discharging the receiver, and we vacate as void its order denying Jones’s motion for a new trial. And while we acknowledge Morgan’s concerns about Jones’s conduct, we deny her motions for sanctions and to declare Jones a vexatious litigator.
In it , Morgan identified two citations to “phantom cases,” which she suggested were a byproduct of hallucinatory artificial-intelligence software.
III. MORGAN’S SANCTIONS MOTION {¶69} On September 15, 2025, Morgan filed a motion to strike Jones’s principal brief and to impose sanctions on the ground that Jones’s brief cited two cases that do not exist. On October 10, a motions panel denied Morgan’s motion to strike but elected to leave the question of sanctions for consideration by this panel.
Appellate c ourts across Ohio and the country have experienced a surge of filings with such “hallucinations”—i.e., false citations pro ffered as true by generative AI.11 Jones neither confirms nor denies the allegation that he relied on AI ; he merely states that the bogus cases “were the result of [his] chasing case law threads from other cases and not keeping close track of the situation.” {¶75} We are inclined to agree with Morgan : Jones’s citations bear the hallmarks of AI hallucinations.
If Jones had real cases in mind, he surely would have provided them in his opposition to Morgan’s motion. And if Jones had fabricated his bogus cases the old-fashioned way, we doubt he would have opted for an odd, three-party caption like “ City of Columbus v. Edwards -Bosh v.
45. In it, we make clear that attorneys and parties using generative AI “are responsible for ensuring that all legal arguments, factual assertions, evidence, and citations are accurate, relevant, and comply with applicable laws, procedural rules, and ethical obligations,” and that the submission of “inaccurate, misleading, or fabricated AI -generated content” may result in “ strik[ing] the filing and/or impos [ing] sanctions on the attorney or party.” Loc.R. 45(B) and (C). {¶77} But Loc.R.
This survey is far from complete, but it provides a flavor of the problem’s prevalence in the last two years. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 32 fabricated citations is clearly a breach of a party’s responsibilities to the court. But our general sanctions rule, Loc.R.
But our general sanctions rule, Loc.R. 23(A), focuses on whether “an appeal, original action, or motion is frivolous or is prosecuted for delay, harassment, or any other improper purpose.” The submission of a brief containing AI hallucinations does not inherently fit these descriptions. {¶78} In the end, we have discretion to determine whether sanctions are warranted in a particular case. Although we could sanction Jones under our inherent authority, we choose not to do so because (1) we had not yet promulgated Loc.R.