| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
|
| D. Neb. – Judge John M. Gerrard | 6/5/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Goins v. Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106729 (D. Neb. June 5, 2025), the defendant moved to strike the pro se plaintiff’s brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff cited to hallucinated cases in his briefing. Although Nebraska Local Rule 7.1(d)(4)(B) permits parties to use GenAI in filings, represented parties and pro se parties are required to certify that all AI-generated text is accurate, which the pro se plaintiff failed to do. The court ultimately declined to strike the opposition because the brief did not contain any “substantive misrepresentations of law.” Instead, Judge Gerrard warned the plaintiff that the repeated use of GenAI without including a certification could result in sanctions. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| D. Neb. - District-Wide | 12/1/2024 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | The District of Nebraska’s local rules require that each “brief” include a certificate of compliance stating that either “no generative artificial intelligence program was used in drafting the document” or “to the extent such a program was used, a human signatory of the document verified the accuracy of all generated text, including all citations and legal authority.” Relatedly, all parties are “expected . . . to verify the contents of their filings” if GenAI is used. The penalty for noncompliance with the certification requirement may result in the brief being stricken or sanctions against the person signing the document. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Nebraska
Jump to:
