Stokka v. Stokka
SC North Dakota · May 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC North Dakota
- Record ID
- stokka-v-stokka-2026-05-07
- Observed outcome
- The court summarily affirmed the lower court judgment and awarded the appellee double costs and attorney's fees totaling $1,000.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The Supreme Court of North Dakota sanctioned a pro se appellant $1,000 in double costs and attorney's fees for submitting an appellate brief containing fictitious or nonexistent legal authorities, which the court identified as likely AI hallucinations, and for failing to comply with mandatory appellate briefing requirements.
The court reasoned that the appellant's brief failed to meet the minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28 by omitting references to the evidentiary record and citing fictitious or nonexistent authorities, which the court characterized as likely AI hallucinations, warranting summary affirmance and monetary sanctions.
This case illustrates the judiciary's increasing intolerance for AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings. It serves as a warning that pro se litigants and counsel alike face summary affirmance and monetary sanctions when briefs rely on fictitious authorities rather than verified legal research.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,000
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the District Court of Cass County to the Supreme Court of North Dakota; summary affirmance under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) with monetary sanctions.
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
Court identified citations as likely AI hallucinations.
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.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.