DeVore v. McCombie
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · N.D. Ill. · Illinois bar guidance
Conduct
Here a motion-to-dismiss memorandum cited a case the court could not find and pin cites to pages beyond the end of a real Seventh Circuit decision.
Consequence
No sanction. The court ordered defense counsel to file a declaration explaining how the memorandum was generated and how counsel located the two authorities.
Lesson
Here the court addressed the citations in an order granting the same party's motion, and asked how the brief was generated.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- DeVore v. McCombie, No. 1:25-cv-00323, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2026) (Rowland, J.), ECF No. 30
- Decided
- May 11, 2026
Summary
Thomas G. DeVore sued Illinois state representative Tony McCombie, alleging that she violated his First Amendment rights by blocking him and deleting his comments on her Facebook page. In supporting the defendant's motion to dismiss, defense counsel cited "Beecham v. City of Anniston, 42 F.4th 1130, 1135 (11th Cir. 2022)" for the proposition that "discrete acts of speech deletion must occur within limitations period." In its May 11, 2026 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court stated that it "is unable to find a case with that name or that combination of volume number, reporter, and page number." Defense counsel also cited Alvarez v. City of Chicago, 605 F.3d 445, 452-53 (7th Cir. 2010), on leave to amend; the court stated that "Alvarez is a real case, but (1) the case ends at page 451, so it appears Defendant cites to non-existent pages, and (2) Alvarez says nothing about the circumstances under which a court may dismiss a complaint with prejudice."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order does not mention artificial intelligence; it directs defense counsel to explain how the memorandum "was generated")
- Amount or terms:
- None; defense counsel ordered to file a declaration explaining how the memorandum was generated and how counsel located the two authorities
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
Judge Mary M. Rowland granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice. In a separate section on the defendant's citations, the court noted "with some concern that Defendant appears to have cited a non-existent case," allowed that "[i]t may be that Defendant inadvertently included typos that prevent the Court from locating the correct versions of either case," and directed defense counsel to file a declaration "explaining how the memorandum in support of Defendant's motion to dismiss was generated and how counsel came to locate Beecham and Alvarez." The order gives two deadlines for the declaration: May 12, 2026 in the discussion and May 22, 2026 in the conclusion. No sanction was imposed or threatened. Judgment was entered and the case terminated; the docket later shows an entry labeled "Alter Judgment" on June 8, 2026 (ECF No. 34).
Why does DeVore v. McCombie matter for law firms using AI?
DeVore v. McCombie is unusual because the citation problem sat in the prevailing party’s brief. Judge Rowland granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a First Amendment social-media blocking claim with prejudice, then added a separate section on the defendant’s citations. One cited Eleventh Circuit decision could not be found under that name or citation, and a real Seventh Circuit decision was pin-cited to pages past the end of the opinion and for a proposition it does not address.
The court was measured. It said the defendant “appears” to have cited a non-existent case and allowed that typos might explain both citations, but it still required a declaration explaining “how the memorandum in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss was generated.” It did not mention artificial intelligence, and it imposed no sanction.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here winning the motion did not end the court’s inquiry into how the supporting brief was prepared.
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.
- Verify pin cites as well as case names. Here the court said it appears the defendant cited non-existent pages of a real Seventh Circuit decision, which ends at page 451.
- Document how each brief is drafted and how its authorities were located. The court ordered counsel to explain both, even though it granted counsel's motion.
- Consider that a court may flag citation problems in a winning brief. Here the court raised the issue in a separate section after granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a tracker inference: the order does not mention artificial intelligence. It says the defendant 'appears' to have cited a non-existent case and allows that typos may explain both citations.
- Defense counsel's declaration was not read (not in RECAP), so how the memorandum was generated is not reported. The order gives inconsistent deadlines for it (May 12, 2026 in the section on defendant's citations; May 22, 2026 in the Conclusion); the docket text repeats May 22. The June 8, 2026 'Alter Judgment' entry (ECF No. 34) was not read; its filer and subject are unknown.
- Defense counsel is not named in the order.