Creech v. City of Raleigh

What sanction did the court impose?

On November 3, 2025, a three-judge panel allowed the motion "as follows": the appellant was to file an amended brief by November 10, 2025; "Upon the filing of the amended brief, Plaintiff-Appellant's 30 July 2025 brief shall be stricken. Cost of printing the amended brief shall be taxed to counsel personally." The order gives no reasons, does not mention AI, and does not call the cost-taxing a sanction. The amended brief was filed on November 10, 2025, and the docket marks the original brief as stricken. The case was decided without oral argument, and on May 20, 2026 the court filed an unpublished opinion (Stading, J.; Griffin, J., concurring; Arrowood, J., concurring in the result) affirming in part and reversing in part the dismissal. The opinion does not mention the fictitious citations, AI, or the stricken brief. It held that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order staying discovery, the issue on which Polk v. Davison had been cited. It upholds the dismissal on governmental immunity grounds and of the claims against Carmona in his individual capacity, but holds the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against Manor and McLamb in their individual capacities.

Why does Creech v. City of Raleigh matter for law firms using AI?

Creech is a North Carolina Court of Appeals matter in which the correction came from counsel, after opposing counsel flagged the problem. The City’s brief pointed out that two cases in the appellant’s brief did not exist, noting that the reporter citation given for one of them corresponds to an unrelated workers’ compensation decision. Appellant’s counsel responded with a Notice of Correction, a sworn statement, and a motion to substitute an amended brief. His statement describes a contract attorney’s research memorandum, prepared in part with Vincent AI, whose citations he understood “had been or would be verified,” and explains that he independently reviewed the authorities he considered central to the appeal but not the two cases, which he did not regard as determinative.

The court’s response was brief and procedural. It allowed the amendment, ordered the original brief stricken once the amended brief was filed, and taxed the cost of printing the amended brief “to counsel personally.” The order does not explain its reasoning, mention AI, or use the word sanction, and the later merits opinion does not return to the issue. The City’s response had noted that the question appeared to be one of first impression in North Carolina’s appellate courts, but on this record the court did not issue a reasoned ruling on it.

For firms, the record is useful mainly for what counsel’s own filings show: citations that entered a brief through a delegated research memorandum and were not checked because they were considered peripheral. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider whether their citation-review practice distinguishes between “principal” and “supporting” authorities, since here the two citations counsel described as supporting, not principal, authorities were the ones that did not exist. The City saw it differently as to one of them, calling Polk v. Davison “a principal case relied upon by Plaintiff” that “does not even exist.”