The hallucinations get more and more vivid

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 11

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MARCH 20, 2026

COURT WRITES TO REMIND LITIGANTS TO STOP USING CASE CITATIONS THAT AI HAS “HALLUCINATED”– ANYONE USING AI HAS AN OBLIGATION TO VERIFY ACCURACY

Roussell v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D442 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 11, 2026):

The appellant cited thirteen cases in her Initial Brief that did not exist. She cited nine cases that existed, but did not stand for the proposition cited.

The court admonished that whether represented or acting pro se, a party is responsible for what gets filed. If a party uses artificial intelligence to assist in preparing a brief, the party must do so “with care” and take steps to ensure the accuracy of any submission. 

While the court declined to impose sanctions, it explicitly warned it had authority to do so under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) for failure to comply with Rule 9.210(c).

TRIAL COURT ERRED BY QUASHING SUBSTITUTED SERVICE AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO SERVE WITHIN 120 DAYS—SERVICE FACIALLY VALID, THEREBY BURDEN SHIFTED TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW THE SERVICE WAS NOT VALID BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

Smith v. Smith, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D448 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 11, 2026):

The plaintiff sued the defendant and filed a motion to extend time for service, claiming the defendant was evading service. The trial court denied that motion for lack of good cause shown. The trial court also dismissed the case, finding that plaintiff failed to serve the defendant within the 120 days mandated by the rule.

The plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal. He produced a return of service that showed that the summons was accepted by someone authorized to accept service at the defendant’s place of employment.

Defendant claimed she was no longer working at that place of employment when the summons was served. In the face of facially valid service, however, the defendant bore the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that it was actually invalid.

The defendant here simply filed an unverified motion with no affidavit. She attached a hearsay letter from a human resources assistant at defendant’s job and nothing else.

This was not enough for the trial court to quash the valid service, resulting in error. The trial court also erred in dismissing based on the failure to serve within 120 days, where the case was not dismissed before service was effectuated.