Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District · Mo. Ct. App. E.D. · Missouri bar guidance
Conduct
Here appellant's brief contained what the court called multiple inaccurate or nonexistent case citations, including one case the court could not verify.
Consequence
No sanction. The court dismissed the appeal for Rule 84.04 briefing failures and noted the citations only in footnotes.
Lesson
Here the citation problems were listed among several briefing defects in an appeal the court dismissed on briefing grounds.
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC, No. ED114002 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. May 5, 2026) (Navarro-McKelvey, P.J.)
- Decided
- May 5, 2026
Summary
Jill Van Deel sued A-Plus Contracting, LLC and its employee Byron Jeffries for negligence after she rode her motorcycle through an oil spill from a company dump truck. The St. Charles County Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that her response to their statement of uncontroverted material facts did not comply with Rule 74.04(c)(2), so the facts were deemed admitted. On appeal, the Eastern District found appellant's brief deficient in several respects. In a footnote it added: "Appellant's brief contains other deficiencies impeding appellate review, including multiple inaccurate or nonexistent caselaw citations." The same footnote noted that the brief called the court the "U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri." A second footnote stated that the argument for the second point relied on only one case, "B.M. [v.] J.S., 775 S.W. 2d 917 (Mo. App. W.P. 1989)," which the court "was unable to verify." The opinion does not identify the other inaccurate or nonexistent citations and does not mention artificial intelligence. Appellant was represented by counsel.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion notes "multiple inaccurate or nonexistent caselaw citations" in appellant's brief but does not mention artificial intelligence or name a tool)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court noted the citations in footnotes and dismissed the appeal under Rules 84.04 and 74.04(c) on other briefing grounds
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In an opinion by Presiding Judge Navarro-McKelvey (Judges Gaertner and Dowd concurring), the court dismissed the appeal. It dismissed Point One because the brief did not set out the facts established under Rule 74.04(c) with page references as Rule 84.04(c) requires, which it said "materially impede[d]" fair review; it added that even on review appellant would not have prevailed on this record. It dismissed Point Two because the point relied on did not substantially comply with Rule 84.04(d) or (e), preserving nothing for review, and because the proposed amended petition was not in the record. The court imposed no sanction and issued no warning or referral concerning the citations, which it mentioned only in two footnotes. The opinion's conclusion reads, in full: "The appeal is dismissed."
Why does Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Van Deel is primarily a Rule 84.04 decision. The Eastern District dismissed both points on appeal because the brief did not set out the summary judgment facts established under Rule 74.04(c), with page references, and because the second point relied on lacked “the legal reasons and support for Appellant’s claim” and was followed by an argument with no preservation statement or standard of review. The court added that, even if it could have reviewed Point One, the appellant would not have prevailed on the summary judgment record.
The citation problem is recorded in two footnotes. The first, attached to the court’s discussion of the fact statement, says the brief “contains other deficiencies impeding appellate review, including multiple inaccurate or nonexistent caselaw citations,” and notes that the brief misnamed the court as a federal district court. The second says the only case cited in the argument for Point Two, “B.M. [v.] J.S., 775 S.W. 2d 917 (Mo. App. W.P. 1989),” was one “this Court was unable to verify.” The opinion does not list the other citations, does not mention artificial intelligence, and takes no action on the point.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that in this opinion the court documented unverifiable authority alongside ordinary briefing defects, in an appeal it dismissed on briefing grounds.
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 each authority cited in an appellate brief. Here the only case cited for the second point was one the court was unable to verify.
- Review the brief against Rule 84.04 before filing. The court dismissed both points for failures in the statement of facts and the point relied on, not for the citations.
- Consider that an appellate opinion may record citation problems even when it does not rely on them. The court described the brief's inaccurate or nonexistent citations in a footnote to its analysis.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference; the opinion does not mention artificial intelligence.
- Which citations the court considered inaccurate or nonexistent, beyond B.M. v. J.S., is not stated in the opinion; the court says only that it was 'unable to verify' B.M. v. J.S.