Santree v. Eveangel Hines
CA North Carolina · Sep 17, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA North Carolina
- Record ID
- santree-v-eveangel-hines-2025-09-17
- Observed outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument due to procedural defaults and the inclusion of fabricated/misrepresented case law.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant's appeal after finding that her brief contained fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court explicitly linked these errors to the improper use of artificial intelligence, determining that the procedural defaults and lack of genuine argument warranted dismissal under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The court reasoned that the defendant's failure to comply with multiple non-jurisdictional appellate rules, combined with the submission of fabricated and misrepresented case law, precluded substantive review of the merits. The court noted that such errors are indicative of unverified AI usage and that the resulting brief failed to present genuine arguments, necessitating dismissal.
This case illustrates how appellate courts may treat briefs containing AI-generated hallucinations as a form of procedural abandonment. It highlights the risk that reliance on unverified AI tools can lead to the summary dismissal of an appeal due to the failure to provide accurate legal authority.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Procedural_noncompliance
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court judgment ejecting the defendant from a property; appeal dismissed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
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 noted the errors suggest the use of artificial intelligence but did not name a specific tool.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law citations, including cross-referencing citations against official reporters.
- Ensure that any legal proposition attributed to a case is explicitly supported by the text of that opinion.
- Establish a review process for all AI-generated content to identify and correct potential hallucinations before filing.
- Strictly adhere to local appellate rules regarding formatting, tables of authority, and statements of fact to avoid procedural dismissal.