Prososki v. Regan

Per Curiam. INTRODUCTION We moved this appeal of a decree of dissolution of mar - riage to our docket to address numerous nonexistent or inac- curate case citations and quotations in the appellant’s brief, which the appellee/cross-appellant asserts are the product of generative artificial intelligence (AI). The appellee/cross- appellant moved to strike the appellant’s brief and dismiss - 40 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports PROSOSKI v.

38 filed a motion to strike Jason’s brief and dismiss Jason’s appeal. In her motion, filed on August 26, Jennifer asserted that Jason’s appellate brief contained many fictitious citations, citations to real cases with incorrect holdings, and nonexis- tent quotations. Jennifer argued that these errors violated the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct, the Nebraska Court Rules of Appellate Practice, and Nebraska’s statute governing frivolous actions.

Jason’s brief was signed and certified by his counsel. An example of Jason’s reliance on fictitious authority is as follows: “In Kennedy v. Kennedy, 27 Neb.

Further, Jason’s brief includes a block quotation from “Kennedy v. Kennedy” that does not exist in the unpublished memorandum opinion; nor does it appear to exist anywhere in Nebraska case law. Jason’s brief cites repeatedly to “Kennedy v.

REGAN Cite as 321 Neb. 38 that cannot be found in the cited cases. For example, Jason’s brief cites to “Simons v.

Simons , 312 Neb. 136, 147, 978 N.W.2d 121, 131 (2022).” 6 This quote attributed to Simons does not exist within the case, nor does it appear to exist in Nebraska case law. Simons is misstated and misquoted several more times throughout the brief.

Stat. § 43-2923(1) (Reissue 2016) as stating, “‘Parenting arrangements should ensure frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact with both parents as is in the child’s best interests.’” 7 However, § 43-2923 actually states in part, “The best interest of the child require: (1) A parenting arrangement and parenting plan or other court-ordered arrange- ment which provides for a child’s safety, emotional growth, health, stability, and physical care and regular and continuous school attendance and progress for school-age children.” Jason’s brief contains many more incidents of his reliance on fictitious authority, real cases with fictitious holdings, and 4 Brief for appellant at 31.

REGAN Cite as 321 Neb. 38 fictitious quotations. The following chart depicts the many problematic citations in Jason’s brief: Jason’s Citation Result of This Court’s Review Kennedy v.

Per Curiam. INTRODUCTION We moved this appeal of a decree of dissolution of mar - riage to our docket to address numerous nonexistent or inac- curate case citations and quotations in the appellant’s brief, which the appellee/cross-appellant asserts are the product of generative artificial intelligence (AI). The appellee/cross- appellant moved to strike the appellant’s brief and dismiss - 40 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports PROSOSKI v.

38 filed a motion to strike Jason’s brief and dismiss Jason’s appeal. In her motion, filed on August 26, Jennifer asserted that Jason’s appellate brief contained many fictitious citations, citations to real cases with incorrect holdings, and nonexis- tent quotations. Jennifer argued that these errors violated the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct, the Nebraska Court Rules of Appellate Practice, and Nebraska’s statute governing frivolous actions.

Jason’s brief was signed and certified by his counsel. An example of Jason’s reliance on fictitious authority is as follows: “In Kennedy v. Kennedy, 27 Neb.

Further, Jason’s brief includes a block quotation from “Kennedy v. Kennedy” that does not exist in the unpublished memorandum opinion; nor does it appear to exist anywhere in Nebraska case law. Jason’s brief cites repeatedly to “Kennedy v.

REGAN Cite as 321 Neb. 38 that cannot be found in the cited cases. For example, Jason’s brief cites to “Simons v.

Simons , 312 Neb. 136, 147, 978 N.W.2d 121, 131 (2022).” 6 This quote attributed to Simons does not exist within the case, nor does it appear to exist in Nebraska case law. Simons is misstated and misquoted several more times throughout the brief.

Stat. § 43-2923(1) (Reissue 2016) as stating, “‘Parenting arrangements should ensure frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact with both parents as is in the child’s best interests.’” 7 However, § 43-2923 actually states in part, “The best interest of the child require: (1) A parenting arrangement and parenting plan or other court-ordered arrange- ment which provides for a child’s safety, emotional growth, health, stability, and physical care and regular and continuous school attendance and progress for school-age children.” Jason’s brief contains many more incidents of his reliance on fictitious authority, real cases with fictitious holdings, and 4 Brief for appellant at 31.

REGAN Cite as 321 Neb. 38 fictitious quotations. The following chart depicts the many problematic citations in Jason’s brief: Jason’s Citation Result of This Court’s Review Kennedy v.