Published opinion, 13 August 2025 · source · PDF · 4 pages
5th DCA 2014)” for the proposition that a party claiming inherited property must provide documents of transfer or other formal proof of inheritance. These cases do not exist, and no cases stand for that proposition or various other contentions in her brief. Wife, “as a pro se litigant, was still required to adequately present [her] arguments on appeal.” Walker v.
3d DCA 1992)). “It is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases in their briefs.” Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed.
163, 169 (2025) (citing Eugene Volokh, Six Federal Cases of Self - Represented Litigants Citing Fake Cases in Briefs, Likely Because They Used AI Programs, Reason: Volokh Conspiracy (Nov. 11, 2023, 10:27 AM), 4 https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/13/self-represented-litigants-use- ai-to-write-briefs-produce-hallucinated-citations). “An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system.” Park v.