An appeal puts fabricated citations in front of a court that is doing two things at once: reviewing a lower tribunal’s ruling, and reading a brief filed in its own court. When that brief cites cases that do not exist, or quotes authority for something it does not say, what does the appellate court do about it?
As of October 2, 2026, the tracker holds 175 decided entries from intermediate appellate courts (162) and courts of last resort (13). Like the rest of the case tracker, they come largely from public databases of AI-related citation incidents, chiefly Damien Charlotin’s (see the methodology). Each entry links to the court’s own opinion or order where one is available. The count leaves out 7 matters still awaiting a ruling. It also leaves out 10 in which a court acted in its own original jurisdiction (attorney discipline, reinstatement, or an original writ) rather than reviewing a lower tribunal.
What the opinions describe varies. Most address nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations, or misrepresented holdings. Some address a different problem: in Innocent v. Meraki Installers, quotations attributed to the trial transcript that the record did not contain. In Browne v. Ciobanu, the Seventh Circuit made no finding about the citations at all; it imposed a sanction for a frivolous appeal, and the entry’s AI classification comes from an outside tracker. Many opinions make no finding that AI was involved.
Every number below is a count of tracker entries. None of them is a rate across all appeals, and the last section explains why the difference matters.
How the tracker codes an appellate outcome
Each entry carries one disposition describing what the appellate court itself did, chosen by the first rule that applies:
- Sanction imposed. The appellate court imposed a sanction of its own: money, fees or costs, suspension, censure, filing restrictions or certifications, CLE, or removal of counsel. A referral to a bar or grievance body, standing alone, does not count.
- Brief struck or disregarded. The court struck the brief, or disregarded part of it.
- Dismissed. The appeal or petition was dismissed, for any reason.
- Warning only. The court warned or admonished, and did nothing more.
- Merits only. The court decided the appeal (affirmed, reversed, or modified) and noted the citation problem without acting on it.
On that coding, the 175 entries break down as follows:
| What the appellate court did | Entries |
|---|---|
| Imposed a sanction | 76 |
| Warned only | 43 |
| Affirmed on the merits | 26 |
| Struck or disregarded the brief | 16 |
| Dismissed the appeal | 9 |
| Reversed on the merits | 3 |
| Modified on the merits | 2 |
| Remanded without a merits ruling | 0 |
| No disposition coded | 0 |
The disposition records what the court did, not why. It does not by itself show that the action rested on the citation problem; the Browne sanction, for example, counts as a sanction. One disposition per entry also hides combinations. A court that strikes a brief, dismisses the appeal, and refers counsel to disciplinary authorities appears once, under the first rule that matches. The case pages describe the full outcome.
When the appellate court sanctions directly
In 76 entries the appellate court imposed a sanction of its own, separate from anything the trial court did.
The Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 25-20086 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) (tracker entry) shows the pattern. The panel had already vacated and remanded the district court’s sanctions order in an unpublished January 6, 2026 opinion. It then turned to the appellant’s reply brief, which its show-cause order said contained 16 fabricated quotations and 5 other serious misrepresentations. The court found that counsel “used artificial intelligence to draft a substantial portion, if not all, of her reply brief and then failed to verify the accuracy of the content generated,” and imposed a $2,500 sanction under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and its inherent power. It saw no need for an AI-specific rule: “Modern generative AI may be a new technology, but the same sanctions rules apply, and the rules we have are well equipped to handle these types of cases.”
Two details in Fletcher matter for firms. The defective brief was a reply, which is easy to treat as lower-risk drafting. And the court tied the sanction to counsel’s show-cause response: “Had [counsel] accepted responsibility and been more forthcoming, it is likely that the court would have imposed lesser sanctions.”
Striking the brief, dismissing the appeal
16 entries record a struck or disregarded brief, and 9 a dismissed appeal. For an appellant these outcomes can cost more than a fine, because the appeal can end without a ruling on the arguments the brief made.
In Grant v. City of Long Beach, Nos. 22-56121, 22-56143 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2024) (tracker entry), the Ninth Circuit found an opening brief that cited “apparently fabricated cases” and misrepresented others. The court issued a focus order on the citations and asked about them at oral argument, and counsel did not acknowledge the fabrications. Under Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1, the brief was struck: “We are therefore compelled to strike Appellants’ brief and dismiss the appeal.” The opinion does not attribute the citations to AI.
The Nebraska Supreme Court went the same way in Prososki v. Regan, 321 Neb. 38, No. S-25-295 (Neb. Mar. 20, 2026) (tracker entry). Relying on its inherent authority, it ordered the appellant’s brief stricken and the appeal dismissed, calling both steps sanctions, and referred counsel to the Counsel for Discipline. Counsel denied using AI. The court treated the question as beside the point: “Whether using AI or not, the obligations of candor, competency, diligence, and making good faith arguments remain the same.”
Not every dismissal turns on the citations. In Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC, No. ED114002 (Mo. Ct. App. May 5, 2026) (tracker entry), the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, largely for briefing-rule violations. It mentioned the citations only in a footnote, noting “multiple inaccurate or nonexistent caselaw citations.” The entry counts as a dismissal because the appeal was dismissed, not because the citations caused it.
Warnings
43 entries record a warning and nothing more. A published warning is still a public record tied to the brief.
In Koeberer v. Weir, No. 25-3541 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2026) (tracker entry), an opinion recommended for publication, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment. It declined to sanction appellant’s counsel for “problematic citations” identified in a show-cause order, but warned that a further lapse “in this case, or other cases in this court, could warrant sanctions.” Quoting its earlier decision in United States v. Farris, the court restated the duty: “Attorneys have an ethical obligation to verify the citations and propositions they submit to courts; that obligation reflects duties of competence and candor.”
The tracker codes 64 entries as involving a self-represented filer. Of those, 24 record a sanction and 20 a warning only. Entries not coded that way number 111, with 52 sanctions and 23 warnings. Because the second group includes represented parties and entries whose record does not say whether the filer had counsel, it is not a clean count of lawyers. These are counts within the tracker, and they say nothing about why a given court chose one response over the other.
Merits rulings that only note the citations
In 26 entries the court affirmed, in 3 it reversed, and in 2 it modified, without itself imposing a sanction, striking the brief, or issuing a warning. That does not always mean nothing happened to counsel.
Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024) (tracker entry) is the best-known example. Counsel’s reply brief cited a nonexistent case, which she admitted she had generated using ChatGPT. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment below. It referred counsel to its Grievance Panel and ordered her to give her client a copy of the decision, “translated into Korean if necessary,” and to certify that she had done so. Under the tracker’s coding a referral alone is not a sanction, so the entry counts as a merits affirmance. The opinion’s statement of the duty is short: “At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely.”
State and federal courts
148 of the entries come from state courts and 27 from federal appellate courts. In the federal entries, 12 record a sanction, 8 a warning, 5 an affirmance that only noted the citations, and 2 a struck brief. In the state entries the figures are 64, 35, 21, and 14, with 9 dismissals.
What these counts can and cannot show
The tracker records matters that reached a public tracker or a published or posted opinion. Unpublished orders, summary dispositions, and appeals in which no one raised the citations are likely underrepresented. A count of entries therefore says how often a response appears in this record, not how often appellate courts choose it.
Three further limits apply. First, the disposition records what the appellate court did, not what the trial court did; the case tracker records both. Second, a few entries concern citations in a lower-court filing that the appellate opinion noted, rather than citations in an appellate brief. Third, as Grant and Prososki show, many opinions do not find that AI produced the citations, and the tracker’s coding does not depend on that finding.
For firms documenting appellate practice
The opinions above do not announce new rules. They apply existing ones: Rule 11, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c), circuit briefing rules, the rules of professional conduct, and the courts’ inherent authority. Firms that document their appellate filing procedures may wish to consider:
- Whether citation verification covers every brief, including replies. The defective briefs in Fletcher and Park were both reply briefs.
- How the firm responds to a show-cause order. In Fletcher, the court said a more forthcoming response would likely have produced a lesser sanction.
- Whether a referral is treated as a separate exposure. In Park and Prososki, counsel was referred to disciplinary authorities whatever else the court did.
How these rules apply to a particular appeal depends on the court and the jurisdiction. Firms with specific questions should consult counsel licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. For the trial-court side of the same record, see AI Hallucination Sanctions: Patterns Across the 2023-2026 Docket.
About these numbers
Each entry’s court, dates, and disposition are sourced from public court records: appellate courts’ own opinion and docket pages, the federal PACER system and the CourtListener RECAP archive. Entries reach the tracker through public databases of AI-related citation incidents, so where an opinion does not mention AI, as in Browne, the entry’s AI classification comes from that outside source rather than from the court record. Every figure above is computed from the tracker when the site is built, so a rehearing, a vacated sanction, or a newly found opinion changes it on the next deploy. The figures reflect the record as of October 2, 2026. Opinions can be withdrawn, modified, or reviewed after they are recorded; verify a matter’s current status against the underlying docket before acting on it.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.