Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Jones v. Simploy
Missouri CA · Sep 24, 2024
MO / stateEditorial impact: lowpro setrial
Direct answer
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."
Operational lesson
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
MissouriSingle-state evidence scope
CourtMissouri CA
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateSep 24, 2024
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
Correction behavior
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.