Prososki v. Regan
SC Nebraska · Mar 20, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Nebraska
- Record ID
- prososki-v-regan-2026-03-20
- Observed outcome
- Appellant's brief stricken; appeal dismissed; referral to Counsel for Discipline.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellant's brief and dismissed the appeal due to the inclusion of numerous fictitious citations and fabricated quotations. Additionally, the court referred the appellant's counsel to the Counsel for Discipline for investigation into potential ethical violations regarding the duty of candor and professional conduct.
The court reasoned that submitting a brief with fictitious authority violates the duty of candor and constitutes professional misconduct. It held that actual intent to deceive is not required; conscious avoidance or failure to adequately review and verify the law satisfies the 'knowingly' requirement for disciplinary purposes. The court determined that the widespread nature of the fictitious authority necessitated striking the brief and dismissing the appeal to protect the integrity of the judicial process.
Fabricated citations in a state-supreme-court brief end appeals and trigger bar referral; verify every cite against the reporter.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Fabricated Quotations
- Misrepresented Legal Authority
- Failure To Verify Citations
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Unspecified
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a dissolution decree; the court struck the appellant's brief and dismissed the appeal following a motion by the appellee highlighting fictitious authority.
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
Counsel denied AI use; court noted it was unclear if AI was used.
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.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.