Hessert v. Hessert & Wieland-Pulayya
CA Florida (6d) · Mar 20, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Florida (6d)
- Record ID
- hessert-v-hessert-wieland-pulayya-2026-03-20
- Observed outcome
- Petition denied; order to show cause issued regarding potential sanctions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued an order to show cause requiring the pro se petitioner to explain why they should not be sanctioned for submitting a filing containing fabricated and misrepresented case law, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI.
The court addressed a petition for writ of certiorari containing multiple non-existent and misrepresented citations, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI by a pro se litigant.
This case illustrates judicial vigilance toward AI-assisted filings by pro se litigants. It reinforces the mandatory duty of all filers to independently verify the existence and accuracy of every cited authority, regardless of the tools used in drafting.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Legal Precedent
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari and issued an order to show cause regarding potential sanctions.
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 court identified the use of generative artificial intelligence.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- 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.