Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken
CA Illinois (1d) · Apr 15, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court struck the plaintiffs' briefs and dismissed the appeal because the filings contained numerous hallucinated case citations and failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 regarding well-reasoned arguments and accurate authority. The court determined that the plaintiffs' persistent reliance on fictitious AI-generated content rendered the appeal impossible to review.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of supreme court rules and must comply with them. It determined that the sheer volume of fake cases (over twenty) and the failure to respond to sanctions motions necessitated striking the briefs and dismissing the appeal to preserve court resources and maintain the integrity of the adversary system.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates that courts will not grant leniency to pro se litigants who use AI to generate filings containing fictitious authority. It reinforces the necessity of verifying all citations and ensuring that AI-assisted research is grounded in actual, existing legal precedent.
Why this matter is tracked
In this personal injury appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court struck the plaintiffs' opening and reply briefs and dismissed the appeal due to repeated violations of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341. The court found that the pro se plaintiffs submitted briefs containing over twenty fictitious or misattributed case citations, including references to 'Centient AI' and text formatting suggesting the use of generative AI. Despite being put on notice by the defendant and given multiple opportunities to correct their filings, the plaintiffs continued to rely on hallucinated authority and incoherent arguments. The court held that pro se status does not excuse the failure to comply with appellate rules and that the plaintiffs' persistent reliance on fictitious holdings rendered meaningful judicial review impossible.
This case illustrates that courts will not grant leniency to pro se litigants who use AI to generate filings containing fictitious authority. It reinforces the necessity of verifying all citations and ensuring that AI-assisted research is grounded in actual, existing legal precedent.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the inclusion of hyperlinks and references to Centient AI.
Appellate review of a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Dunn v. Old Orchard Ctr., Ltd., 306 Ill. App. 3d 75 (1999) for a proposition the actual case (People v. Maurice Dunn) does not support; court identified the citation as misattributed/misrepresented.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Arnold v. Hoyt, 384 F. Supp. 566 (1974) and quoted language not found in the actual opinion; court notes the citation corresponds to Geldermann & Co., Inc. v. Dussault and the quoted passage is absent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court and defendant identified numerous non-existent or fictitious cases in plaintiffs' briefs (the motion alleges over twenty fake cases), including an uncited/reference-only 'Fausett v. Walgreen Co' with no supporting citation or record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken?
- The court struck the plaintiffs' briefs and dismissed the appeal because the filings contained numerous hallucinated case citations and failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 regarding well-reasoned arguments and accurate authority. The court determined that the plaintiffs' persistent reliance on fictitious AI-generated content rendered the appeal impossible to review.
- Why does Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates that courts will not grant leniency to pro se litigants who use AI to generate filings containing fictitious authority. It reinforces the necessity of verifying all citations and ensuring that AI-assisted research is grounded in actual, existing legal precedent.
- What does the public record establish about Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; 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.