Dupont v. Town of Wales

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

In a Decision and Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment dated May 23, 2025 (filed May 27, 2025), Justice Deepika B. Shukla denied both motions, finding a material dispute over whether the property was used as a camp within two years of the October 13, 2016 special permit. On the citation, the footnote concludes: "Nevertheless, this issue does not change the Court's ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment." The court imposed no sanction, issued no warning, and made no referral; its only action on the citation was to record that it could not find the case.

Why does Dupont v. Town of Wales matter for law firms using AI?

Dupont is a zoning appeal in which a citation problem surfaced in a single footnote. The plaintiff argued that the Zoning Board of Appeals could not rely on a bylaw enacted after the property’s 2016 special permit, and cited “Capone v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Marlborough, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 563 (1992)” for that point. The court wrote that it “was unable to find this case” and that “[t]he citation is incorrect, or the case does not exist.”

The court took no further step. It did not warn counsel, order an explanation, or impose any sanction, and it said the issue “does not change the Court’s ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment.” It denied both sides’ motions because there was a genuine dispute over whether the property had been used as a camp within two years of the permit. The decision does not mention artificial intelligence; the Charlotin tracker’s AI coding rests on a Westlaw editor’s note, not on anything the court wrote.

Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, a court’s own inability to locate a cited authority was recorded in its written decision even though it imposed nothing and the point did not affect the outcome.