Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group
Pennsylvania Superior Court · Pa. Super. Ct. · Pennsylvania bar guidance
Conduct
Appellants' counsel cited "Com v. Reid," which the court could not find (the citation led to an unrelated case), and misattributed a Supreme Court quotation.
Consequence
No sanction. The Superior Court held the issue waived as underdeveloped and supported in part by non-existent or unlocatable precedent, and affirmed the nonsuit.
Lesson
Here the Superior Court found an issue waived as underdeveloped and supported in part by an unlocatable citation; it imposed no sanction and quoted earlier case law raising the chatbot question.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Grp., No. 2428 EDA 2025, J-A12012-26 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2026) (non-precedential memorandum) (Stevens, P.J.E.)
- Decided
- August 27, 2026
Summary
Paige and Ty Kiser appealed a compulsory nonsuit in their action against DeSimone Auto Group under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and related theories, arising from allegedly undisclosed damage to a used Jeep. In the section of their brief challenging the exclusion of questioning about a title-paperwork date discrepancy, appellants cited a case as "Com v. Reid, 770 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2001)." The Superior Court said it "can find no such case in existence"; the citation instead led to Commonwealth v. Burton, 770 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 1999), which does not address the evidentiary rule at issue. Quoting Commonwealth v. Shie (Pa. Super. 2023) (unpublished), the court said it was "left to guess whether this counterfeit authority is the product of a chatbot, or if there is a more nefarious explanation for the misinformation." In a separate footnote, the court found appellants' attribution of a Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products quotation to Justice Scalia (the majority opinion was delivered by Justice O'Connor), with two words of the quotation changed, "demonstrative of counsel's apparent failure to carefully review the cases cited in his brief."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (quoting an earlier Superior Court decision, the court said it was left to guess whether the "counterfeit authority is the product of a chatbot" or had a more nefarious explanation; it made no finding of AI use)
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In a non-precedential memorandum by President Judge Emeritus Stevens, the panel affirmed the judgment. It held appellants' third issue waived because that section of the brief was "underdeveloped, and supported in part by non-existent or unlocatable precedent," and found the remaining issues waived or without merit on other grounds. The court imposed no sanction and did not refer counsel for discipline over the nonexistent citation. Separately, it admonished counsel to include a completed certificate of compliance within future briefs, after noting that the brief exceeded the permissible uncertified length and that the separately filed certificate stated the brief "contains ? [sic] words."
Why does Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group matter for law firms using AI?
Kiser is a short illustration of how one Superior Court panel handled an unlocatable citation in a counseled brief: it treated the argument as undeveloped and found it waived. The memorandum does not mention any request for sanctions. The memorandum is careful about what it does not know. It states that the court “can find no such case in existence,” traces the reporter citation to Commonwealth v. Burton, and then, quoting its own earlier unpublished decision in Commonwealth v. Shie, says it is left to guess whether the authority is “the product of a chatbot” or something “more nefarious.” It adds a Court of Federal Claims observation that generative AI programs are known to hallucinate nonexistent cases. That is a flag, not a finding, and the entry treats it that way.
The memorandum’s footnote on Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products is the more pointed passage. Appellants quoted Reeves as the words of Justice Scalia and substituted “defendant” and “unlawful” for the opinion’s “employer” and “discriminatory”; the majority opinion was delivered by Justice O’Connor. The court called this “demonstrative of counsel’s apparent failure to carefully review the cases cited in his brief” and said the quoted principle had no bearing on the issue raised: “It is a non sequitur.” Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the court’s concern extended beyond a nonexistent case to the accuracy of quotations and their attribution, and that the practical cost was the loss of the argument on appeal.
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 every citation in an appellate brief against the reporter. The Superior Court followed the "Com v. Reid" citation to a different case and said its review of the argument was "substantially impaired."
- Review quotations and their attribution, not only whether a case exists. The court treated a misattributed and altered Reeves quotation as demonstrating counsel's apparent failure to review the cited cases carefully.
- Consider that a defective citation can cost the argument even without a sanction. The court held the affected issue waived.
- Document compliance with briefing formalities. The court separately admonished counsel over a word-count certificate filed separately rather than within the brief, and left incomplete.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference. The memorandum raises the chatbot possibility only by quoting Commonwealth v. Shie and a Court of Federal Claims decision on generative AI; it does not find that AI was used and does not identify a tool.