City of Dickinson v. Helgeson
Supreme Court of North Dakota · N.D. Sup. Ct. · North Dakota bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se vexatious-litigant appellant cited five fictitious cases plus erroneous citations in N.D. Supreme Court appellate brief.
Consequence
Vexatious litigant designation affirmed; $500 sanction imposed under N.D.R. App. P. 13 and 28(l) for fictitious citations.
Lesson
N.D. Supreme Court sanctioned fictitious citations under existing appellate rules, said it does not criticize AI use, and called for scrupulous verification.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, 31 N.W.3d 672 (N.D. Feb. 12, 2026)
- Decided
- February 12, 2026
Summary
Pro se appellant Seth Neil Helgeson filed an appellate brief in the North Dakota Supreme Court challenging the district court's order designating him a vexatious litigant after a jury found him in violation of Dickinson Municipal Code § 58-705 for failure to display license plates. The City of Dickinson identified six fictitious citations in Helgeson's brief. Justice Daniel J. Crothers, writing for a unanimous panel, found that Helgeson cited several nonexistent cases whose "offered citations lead to different cases that do not support his claims, and a search of the provided case names also is fruitless." The court tabulated five fictitious citations alongside their closest-genuine analogues. Helgeson did not defend or explain his use of the fictitious cases.
- AI tool:
- Implied (the court quoted Mezu v. Mezu that 'Fake or nonexistent legal citations typically are the result of AI “hallucinations.”' and said the source of the errors did not matter)
- Sanction amount:
- $500
What sanction did the court impose?
The court affirmed the vexatious litigant designation and granted the City's request for sanctions, awarding $500 against Helgeson under N.D.R. App. P. 13 and 28(l). The court held the underlying traffic infraction was noncriminal, so the district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 to designate Helgeson a vexatious litigant. The court rejected Helgeson's constitutional challenges to the vexatious-litigant rule. Notably, the court "warn[ed] all litigants that using erroneous citation to authority, and providing courts with citation to fictitious cases, exposes the filing party to the imposition of sanctions appropriate under the circumstances."
Why does City of Dickinson v. Helgeson matter for law firms using AI?
Helgeson is a unanimous opinion of the North Dakota Supreme Court (Crothers, J., joined by McEvers, C.J., and Tufte, Jensen, and Bahr, JJ.). The court found that Helgeson “cited several nonexistent cases” (para. 14) and awarded the City “$500.00 from Helgeson as a sanction for his misconduct” (para. 19), on the City’s request under N.D.R.App.P. 28(l) and the court’s authority under N.D.R.App.P. 13 (paras. 13, 19).
Two passages matter for firm policy. First, the court addressed AI use directly: “By this statement and citation, we do not criticize the use of AI or AI-assisted tools. To the contrary, we encourage and embrace the use of technology to improve the work product of all litigants, whether represented or self-represented” (para. 16). Second, it placed responsibility on the filer regardless of how the error arose: “the use of technology, especially developing technology like AI, requires careful use and scrupulous verification of the arguments and authorities generated by anyone using the tool,” and “regardless of how the errors came to be, he is responsible for the consequences of his errors” (para. 18). Quoting Evenstad v. Buchholz, the court noted that procedural rules “will not be modified or applied differently merely because a party not learned in the law is acting pro se” (para. 18).
The court later relied on Helgeson in Stokka v. Stokka, 2026 ND 94, and Ali v. Osman, 2026 ND 156, which also sanctioned self-represented appellants for fictitious citations.
Primary source: the court’s corrected opinion (filed April 14, 2026) at ndcourts.gov.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Helgeson applies existing rules (N.D.R.App.P. 13 and 28(l)) to fictitious citations; it does not adopt a new AI rule. The court warned 'all litigants that using erroneous citation to authority, and providing courts with citation to fictitious cases, exposes the filing party to the imposition of sanctions appropriate under the circumstances' (para. 19).
- The court quoted Mezu v. Mezu, 346 A.3d 181, 189 (Md. App. Ct. 2025), for the observation that 'Fake or nonexistent legal citations typically are the result of AI “hallucinations.”' (para. 16), but stated that 'it does not matter whether Helgeson's fictitious cases and erroneous citations were AI-generated or the result of careless work' (para. 18).
- Firms may wish to pair any AI-use policy with citation-verification logs: the court stated that 'we do not criticize the use of AI or AI-assisted tools' (para. 16) and that 'the use of technology, especially developing technology like AI, requires careful use and scrupulous verification of the arguments and authorities generated by anyone using the tool' (para. 18).
Sources
Primary sources
- Government primary source
- CourtListener opinion (primary source)
- Government primary source
- Government primary source
Further reading
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
- Justia (legal aggregator)
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.