Corey v. Kenneh
SC North Dakota · Oct 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC North Dakota
- Record ID
- corey-v-kenneh-2025-10-22
- Observed outcome
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's order.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The North Dakota Supreme Court identified that the appellee relied on non-existent or irrelevant case law to argue mootness. The Court did not impose a sanction for these citations, but instead proceeded to affirm the lower court's order based on the appellant's failure to provide a transcript necessary for meaningful appellate review.
The Court reasoned that because the appellee provided non-existent case law, it could not discern whether collateral consequences existed to support a mootness argument, and it ultimately affirmed the lower court's order due to the appellant's failure to provide a transcript.
This case illustrates how courts address non-existent citations in pro se filings. While the court identified the error, the outcome was determined by procedural failures regarding the appellate record rather than sanctions for the citations.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Other
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- No tool named in source
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.