Kruse v. Karlen
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District (No. ED111172)
- Judge
- Judges Kelly C. Broniec, Michael E. Gardner, Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey
- Date filed
- 2023-01
- Sanctioned
- 2024-02-13
- AI tool
- Undisclosed generative AI
- Monetary penalty
- $10,000 damages awarded to respondent Karlen for frivolous appeal, and appeal dismissed. Appellant Jonathan R. Karlen (pro se) sanctioned personally.
- Outcome
- Court dismissed appellant's appeal for filing a brief containing 22 fabricated citations, awarded $10,000 in damages to respondent for frivolous appeal, and issued a formal published opinion setting forth the Missouri courts' expectation that all citations be verified against primary sources regardless of the drafting tool used.
What happened
Jonathan R. Karlen appealed pro se from a probate judgment. His appellant brief contained 24 case citations, of which 22 were entirely fabricated — non-existent opinions attributed to real Missouri and federal courts. When counsel for respondent (Karlen's sister, Molly Kruse) attempted to verify the citations for her responsive brief, none of the 22 could be found in any reporter.
The Missouri Court of Appeals' February 13, 2024 opinion detailed each fabricated citation and held: "Filing an appellate brief with bogus citations in this Court, especially where the appellant admits to using an artificial intelligence platform, undermines this Court's ability to trust every filing, wastes the time of opposing counsel and the Court, and further erodes the public's confidence in the legal system." The court dismissed the appeal, awarded $10,000 to respondent Kruse under Rule 84.19 for frivolous appeal, and remanded for the trial court to enter judgment for that amount.
This is the only case among the canonical AI-hallucination sanction cases in which a pro se litigant (not a licensed attorney) was sanctioned, and the only one where the monetary award went directly to the opposing party rather than the court. It is frequently cited for the proposition that Rule 11-style verification duties attach to any filer, licensed or not.
The fabricated citations
22 fabricated citations in total; representative examples below.
Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)
Volume and reporter exist; the case at that page is different and does not support the proposition cited.
Wong v. Bann-Cor Mortg., 918 S.W.2d 793 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)
Does not exist.
Beckett v. Beckett, 464 S.W.3d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)
Does not exist.
See the court's opinion for the complete list of 22 fabricated cites and the specific fabrication mode for each.
How Citation Safe would have caught this
Citation Safe would have returned "not found" verdicts on all 22 fabricated citations in a single run. The tool also supports pro se litigants (no state bar affiliation required for the free tier) — the exact profile of Karlen. Because the Missouri Court of Appeals emphasized that its citation-verification expectation attaches to any filer regardless of license status, this case is the strongest authority for Citation Safe as a pre-filing checklist item for every party, not just represented ones.
Sources
Run Opposition Check on any brief you’re about to file for — $49.
Full annotated report on every citation in the opposing filing. Attach it to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.