| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
|
| E.D. Ark – Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. | 12/2/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Magee v. New Balance Athletics., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234410 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 2, 2025), the pro se plaintiff used GenAI to prepare his response to the defendant's motion to dismiss, in which he allegedly “misstated the holdings of twenty-seven of the thirty cases cited, invented false quotations from twenty-three cases, and fabricated two cases.” In response, the plaintiff apologized and promised to do better in the future. Judge Marshall “accept[ed] [the plaintiff's] apology” but “admonish[ed] him,” warning that he must verify his sources in future filings and show cause why the court should not impose a monetary sanction for his “generative-AI-infected response.” The court ultimately granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff's response and denied pending motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| E.D. Ark., Central Division - Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. | 4/9/2025 | Any AI | Any AI | In Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-1053-DPM, the pro se plaintiff included two fictitious citations in a filing submitted to the court. Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. noted these false citations and ordered an explanation for the citations’ inaccuracy, citing the plaintiff’s obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), and cautioning that monetary sanctions of $500 could apply if not addressed. The plaintiff submitted an explanation and apology, which Judge Marshall accepted, but cautioned the plaintiff to “verify all sources he cites in his court filings”, and to “cultivate a healthy skepticism about materials located with internet searches and especially about materials that are (or could have been) generated by artificial intelligence.” |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Arkansas
Jump to:
