AI-related case
Brankle v. Schmell
The trial court found that Brankle's filings contained repeated citations to rules that do not exist and fictitious cases, stating he appeared to be using ChatGPT to prepare filings. The trial court denied his motion to compel and ordered him to pay Schmell's expenses; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the motion was not substantially justified because it was riddled with hallucinated authorities and that as a pro se litigant he is held to the same standards as trained attorneys.
Judges: Cale J. Bradford