Jones v. Simploy
Missouri CA · Sep 24, 2024
What happened in this matter?
Outcome: Warning. The court held: "Giving Claimant the benefit of the doubt, we suspect such citations were generated by artificial intelligence rather than the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.We strongly caution that “[c]iting nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court[;] [i]t does not matter if [generative A.I.] told you so.” Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (quoting Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, & Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary? 107 Judicature 68, 75 (2023)). In Kruse v.…
- Why the court cared
- The linked record identifies pro se and trial and records Warning. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Missouri CA, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Outcome: Warning. The court held: "Giving Claimant the benefit of the doubt, we suspect such citations were generated by artificial intelligence rather than the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.We strongly caution that “[c]iting nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court[;] [i]t does not matter if [generative A.I.] told you so.” Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (quoting Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, & Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary? 107 Judicature 68, 75 (2023)). In Kruse v. Karlen, the appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fabricated, non-existent cases. Id. at 48-51. This Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay $10,000 in damages to the opposing party for filing a frivolous appeal. Id. at 54.We will not dismiss Claimant's appeal and sanction her as we did the appellant in Kruse v. Karlen because this is a straightforward unemployment compensation case between a pro se litigant and an agency of the State of Missouri, wherein the State did not have to pay outside counsel to respond to the appeal. However, litigants who use generative AI to draft their briefs should not rely on our continued magnanimity."
This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Missouri CA, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Warning
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jones v. Simploy?
- Outcome: Warning. The court held: "Giving Claimant the benefit of the doubt, we suspect such citations were generated by artificial intelligence rather than the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.We strongly caution that “[c]iting nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court[;] [i]t does not matter if [generative A.I.] told you so.” Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (quoting Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, & Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use of Generative AI Really Necessary? 107 Judicature 68, 75 (2023)). In Kruse v.…
- Why does Jones v. Simploy matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Missouri CA, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Jones v. Simploy?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Jones v. Simploy summary?
- The recorded source is caselaw.findlaw.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.