Kendall E. Scheer v. Scheer Farms, LLC
CA Kansas · Jun 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Kansas
- Record ID
- kendall-e-scheer-v-scheer-farms-llc-2026-06-05
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. The concurring judge would have additionally affirmed on the basis that the appellant's reliance on fake cases constituted a failure to properly brief the issues.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court addressed the appellant's use of fake case citations and fabricated quotes in his appellate brief. A concurring judge explicitly identified these as nonexistent authorities, noted the appellee's objection, and stated that such filings violate the duty to ensure legal contentions are warranted by existing law, regardless of the litigant's pro se status.
The concurring judge reasoned that fake opinions do not constitute existing law and that citing them fails to provide a non-frivolous ground for legal argument. The concurrence further held that pro se litigants remain bound by K.S.A. 60-211(b)(2) to conduct reasonable inquiries into the validity of cited authority, and that relying on fake opinions degrades the integrity of the court and abuses the adversary system.
This case illustrates judicial intolerance for fabricated legal authority in appellate filings, even when submitted by pro se litigants. It reinforces that the duty to verify citations under rules like K.S.A. 60-211 applies to all parties, and that courts will disregard arguments supported by hallucinated sources.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fabricated_quotes
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a district court's grant of summary judgment.
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 concurrence mentions AI as a potential source of the fabrications.
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
- Independently verify the existence and text of every case citation and quote before filing, regardless of the research tool used.
- Do not rely on AI-generated research without manual cross-referencing against official legal databases.
- Review opposing counsel's citations for potential hallucinations if they appear unfamiliar or suspicious.
- Ensure all legal contentions are supported by verifiable, existing law to avoid waiver of arguments.