Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting, LLC
Missouri CA · May 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Missouri CA
- Record ID
- van-deel-v-a-plus-contracting-llc-2026-05-05
- Observed outcome
- The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to comply with mandatory appellate briefing rules.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appellant's appeal after finding that the brief contained multiple inaccurate or nonexistent caselaw citations, which materially impeded appellate review. The court explicitly identified these errors as a failure to comply with mandatory briefing rules, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The court reasoned that the appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04, including the inclusion of inaccurate or nonexistent citations and misidentification of the court, materially impeded the court's ability to perform a fair and meaningful review of the merits.
This case illustrates the judicial response to briefing submissions containing fabricated legal authorities. It highlights that courts may dismiss appeals when such errors, combined with other procedural failures, prevent the court from conducting a meaningful review of the merits.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a circuit court's grant of summary judgment; appeal dismissed.
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 opinion notes the brief contained inaccurate or nonexistent citations, implying the use of an automated research or drafting 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 legal citations before filing.
- Conduct independent verification of all case law, including court names and reporter details, regardless of the research tool used.
- Ensure all appellate filings strictly adhere to local rules regarding the statement of facts and points relied on.