June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Sharky's Sports Bar v. Village of Mt. Morris, Illinois

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Western Division · N.D. Ill. · Illinois bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified April 26, 2026

Citation
Sharky's Sports Bar v. Village of Mt. Morris, No. 3:24-cv-50457 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2025)
Decided
December 10, 2025

Summary

In a memorandum opinion denying defendants Heather and Brock Swanlund's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Iain D. Johnston included a section titled "A Brief Word on Generative AI" flagging erroneous citations in the Swanlunds' earlier motion to dismiss (Dkt. 176). The order found that Rowe v. State of Lombard exists but its reporter volume and first page were misrepresented, and that O'Sullivan v. City of Chicago cases exist but their reporter volume, first page, date, and court were all misrepresented, with none of the real O'Sullivan cases supporting the proposition cited. Judge Johnston wrote that "given what this Court knows about generative artificial intelligence, the Court believes Defendants used it."

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

No monetary sanction was imposed. The Court issued a caution: "Defendants are cautioned that the submission of false information including erroneous citations may result in sanctions." The motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied on the merits, with the negligence claim allowed to proceed.

Why does Sharky's Sports Bar v. Village of Mt. Morris, Illinois matter for law firms using AI?

Sharky’s illustrates the warning shot judges are increasingly willing to fire before reaching for Rule 11. The order names no attorney and imposes no fee, but the published rebuke is a permanent feature of the docket and a citable signal to opposing counsel and malpractice carriers that the firm filed a brief with citations the court believes were generated by AI without verification. For a small firm, the reputational exposure from a paragraph like this can outlast the underlying litigation.

Sources

Primary sources

Further reading

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.