Published opinion, 1 April 2026 · source · PDF · 7 pages
2 Bengtson did not file a resp onse brief in this appeal. Due to numerous fatal briefing deficiencies under the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals and Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure –Civil that prevent us from engaging in meaningful review, including the submission of fictitious cases, we dismiss the appeal. On November 7, 2023, Bengtson filed a complaint in the Benton County Circuit Court alleging that on the night of February 3, 2022, Hrdlichka committed a felonious second-degree battery against her, and she suffer ed damages as a result.
Although any one of the above-described deficiencies, viewed in isolation, might appear technical or minor, taken together they reflect a complete failure to comply with Rule 4-2. 4 Even more concerning to this court is the fact Hrdlichka cites multiple cases that, upon review, do not exist. The authorities relied on in support of his arguments are not found in the Arkansas Reports, the SouthWestern Reporter, or any recognized legal database.
In short, they are fictitious. We cannot evaluate arguments predicated on nonexistent precedent. The appellate process depends on accurate citation to existing authority so that we may assess the legal foundation of a party ’s claims.
The appellate process depends on accurate citation to existing authority so that we may assess the legal foundation of a party ’s claims. When a party cites fabricated cases, we are deprived of any meaningful ability to conduct review. Fictitious citations fail to comply with Rule 4 -2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Appellate Court.
These significant violations of our rules mandate dismissal of this appeal. We further take this opportunity to address a growing and troubling practice: the submission of appellate briefs generated in whole or in part through artificial -intelligence tools that contain fabricated, inaccurate, or nonexistent legal citations. This practice presents serious risks to the integrity of judicial proceedings and undermines the administration of justice.
When a party cites precedent, th e court must be able to rely on the representation that the authority exists, that it stand s for the proposition asserted, and that it has not been mischaracterized. Fabricated citations — whether created intentionally or through unverified use of artificial intelligence—waste judicial resources, delay resolution of cases, and erode confidence in the judicial system. Second, all litigants, including pro se appellants, bear responsibility for the contents of their filings.
The use of artificial intelligence does not relieve a litigant of the duty to verify the accuracy of citations. A brief containing nonexistent cases is no different, in effect, from a brief containing invented precedent. Third, the court emphasizes that technology, including artificial intelligence, is not a substitute for legal judgment, verification, and professional diligence.
That responsibility remains squarely with the party who signs and submits the brief. Filings that contain fabricated or materially inaccurate citations may be struck, and appropriate sanctions, such as dismissal, may be imposed where warranted. Finally, filing an appellate brief with fictitious citations in this court, for any reason, is a flagrant violation of the duties of candor Hrdlichka and every other appellant owes to this court.