Florida's Second DCA dismissed an appeal after the appellants' brief cited eleven cases the court could not locate

Key takeaways

• The brief cited eleven cases the court could not locate. The Washingtons did not supply copies after a show-cause order.
• The court called the generative-AI explanation likely, and said the source of the fake cases is not what concerns it.
• The court said it need not retroactively apply amended Rule 2.515(d)(2)(D) to impose sanctions.
• The sanction was dismissal of the appeal plus an inactive-file direction for certain future filings. A footnote cautions about other pending matters.

What did the Second DCA actually decide?

It dismissed the appeal. The Washingtons had appealed a final order dismissing their complaint in Hillsborough County case 24-CA-010301. The court says their initial brief cited eleven cases it could not locate, and that it ordered them either to provide copies or to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for a brief relying on "fictitious case law". Its order named dismissal and an order barring further pro se filings as possible sanctions.

The Washingtons did not provide the cases. The opinion records that they called the citations scrivener's errors "resulting from intense logistical pressure", and that they said volume and page numbers were "mangled" during drafting. The court held that the response "fails to adequately explain the inclusion of the fabricated case citations." It dismissed the appeal "Based on the Washingtons' reliance on fictious cases, unavailing response to this court's order, and pattern of frivolous filings." The opinion's last line reads "Affirmed."; we report it as printed and draw no inference from it.

What did the court say about generative AI?

The court made no finding on it. The opinion says the Washingtons' response "neither confesses nor denies" that generative artificial intelligence produced the citations, and that it is "likely" it did. It cites the court's earlier decision in Russell v. Mells on how such models work and on hallucinations. It then sets the point aside: "it is not the source of the fictitious cases that concerns us, but the Washingtons' reliance on them in their brief."

On sanctionability, the court says several courts, including this one, have held that "the submission of fictitious cases is sanctionable." It gives its reasons for that position: such submissions abuse the adversary system, waste the court's time, and could harm the reputation of judges and parties whose names are falsely invoked.

Which rule supported the sanction, and why does the 2026 amendment matter?

The court rested on rules that existed before the amendment. The opinion says the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) so that the signer of a filing certifies the legal authorities identified "exist and are accurately cited". The Washingtons argued their brief predated that amendment and that it cannot be applied retroactively. The court answered that it "need not retroactively apply" the rule.

Its reasoning is that, before the amendment, courts applying the earlier version of Rule 2.515(d)(2) held that pro se parties and attorneys represent the accuracy of a filing by signing it. "Because a citation to a nonexistent case is not accurate," the court says, signing a filing with fictitious citations breaches that representation, and Rule 9.410(a) lets the court sanction such a breach without relying on the amended version. It quotes a Sixth DCA decision, Davidson v. Chang-Warner, for the point that the amendments clarify what the earlier rule already covered. Our article on the Florida filing rule covers the rule itself.

How did the filing history shape the outcome?

The court treated it as part of the sanction analysis. It says it considered the Washingtons' history across this case and two others, 2D2025-1883 and 2D2025-2170. Appeal 2D2025-1883 was dismissed as from a nonfinal, nonappealable order. In 2D2025-2170 the court denied the Washingtons' petition for writ of quo warranto and all writs. Across all three, it says, they raised meritless challenges to the court's fee orders and filed meritless rehearing motions.

The inactive-file direction is limited. It covers original proceedings or notices of appeal filed by LaVonne or Michael Washington related to case 24-CA-010301, unless a member in good standing of The Florida Bar signs the filing or the proceeding was pending when the opinion issued. A footnote says the Washingtons have other, unrelated proceedings pending in the court and cautions that further frivolous filings or fictitious case citations in those cases "may result in additional sanctions."

What should litigants and lawyers do now?

Check authority before signing, and keep the proof. The opinion states no new duty for others, but it shows what happened when a party could not produce the cases the court asked for.

• Pull and read every cited case before a brief is signed, whether it came from a research tool, a colleague or a pro se client.
• Keep a copy of each authority in the file so a show-cause order can be answered with the cases themselves.
• If a court asks about a citation, answer the question asked. In this opinion, the court found the response did not explain the citations.
• Check the current text of Rule 2.515(d)(2) and Rule 9.410(a) before relying on this summary.

What are the key dates and parties?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the full five-page opinion PDF on the Florida courts media site, on 25 October 2026.

What we did not open: the cases the opinion cites, the court's order to show cause, the Washingtons' brief and response, the lower court record, the Supreme Court's amendment to Rule 2.515, and any docket entry after 7 October 2026. We did not check for rehearing, a corrected opinion or official publication.

What we refuse to claim: that the court found the Washingtons used generative AI, that the opinion sets a rule for all Florida courts beyond what it states, what any particular fine or fee follows, or what the eleven cited cases were.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• North America AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Florida Rule 2.515 and sanctions for AI-generated filings
• Florida Second DCA, Keefe, hallucinated citations and sanctions
• US appellate courts and pro se AI-fabricated citations
• Pennsylvania Superior Court, Kaspryak, hallucinated citations and waiver