On September 1, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District dismissed an appeal after finding that three of the cases cited in the appellant’s brief did not exist. The dispute underneath it was a small claims case about a transmission repair. The rule the court applied reaches every appeal filed in this state.
Decided September 1, 2026. Willie C. Fortune v. CTA Certified Transmission, No. WD88370 (Mo. App. W.D.). Opinion by Judge Lisa White Hardwick; Presiding Judge Janet Sutton and Judge W. Douglas Thomson concurring. The appeal was dismissed, which leaves the trial court judgment in place.
A dismissal on briefing grounds does not usually draw attention. This one is worth reading for what the court found inside the brief. Judge Hardwick wrote that the filing contained inaccuracies in every case citation it offered, misstatements of what the cited cases held, pin cites pointing to pages where no legal proposition appears, and, most seriously, three cases that are “completely fictitious.” The brief relied on those three nonexistent cases eight times.
The court did not identify where the fabricated citations came from. The opinion does not mention artificial intelligence, research software, or any outside preparer. That silence matters, and this article does not fill it in. What the opinion does establish is what happens in Missouri when a brief rests on authority that cannot be verified, and that holding applies no matter how the citations were produced.
How the case reached the Court of Appeals
In November 2024, Willie Fortune filed a small claims petition in Jackson County against CTA Certified Transmission, alleging that his vehicle was damaged when he brought it in for transmission work. The small claims court heard testimony from Fortune and two CTA employees and entered judgment for CTA.
Fortune then applied for a trial de novo, the second look Missouri gives small claims litigants under section 482.365, RSMo. That application must be filed with the clerk within ten days after judgment, and the resulting trial follows the practice used before circuit judges. Fortune filed an amended petition asserting negligence, tried the case to the bench without a lawyer, and lost again.
On appeal he raised six points, challenging evidentiary rulings, the denial of a request for sanctions or an adverse inference, the timing of a ruling on his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, alleged due process violations, and the denial of his motion to compel evidence. The Court of Appeals never reached any of them. CTA did not file a responsive brief; the court dismissed on its own review of the briefing.
What Rule 84.04 requires, and why courts enforce it
Rule 84.04 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure sets out what an appellate brief must contain. Compliance is mandatory, and Missouri courts have said for years that the requirement exists so that appellate judges do not become advocates by speculating about facts and arguments a party never actually made. A substantial failure to comply preserves nothing for review and is itself a ground for dismissal.
The Western District applied that standard without adjusting it because Fortune was self-represented. Quoting Kim v. Kim, 431 S.W.3d 524, 525 (Mo. App. 2014): “We hold pro se appellants to the same procedural rules as attorneys, and we do not grant them preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules.” Missouri courts have explained that this reflects not a lack of sympathy but a need for impartiality and fairness to the other party.
The defects the court itemized
The table of authorities. The brief cited fourteen cases but listed only five in the table, three of which never appeared in the brief at all. It listed six Supreme Court Rules, four of which never appeared, and omitted one rule that did. No page references were given.
Irrelevant authority. In fifteen separate instances, the brief cited cases that bear no relation to the legal issue for which they were offered.
Misstated holdings. Where a cited case did have some relevance, the brief substantively misstated the proposition it stood for.
Empty pin cites. Two citations pointed to pages containing only the factual and procedural history of the cited case, where no legal proposition exists.
Three cases that do not exist. The brief relied on the first fictitious case five times, the second twice, and the third once.
The court also pointed to the certification a filer makes by signing. Under Rule 55.03(c), presenting a legal contention to a court certifies that, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, it is warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument. Fortune submitted the brief in his own name and certified its compliance as a self-represented person. That is the same certification a licensed attorney signs.
Filing an appellate brief with spurious citations represents a “flagrant violation of the duties of candor Appellant owes to this Court.”
Judge Lisa White Hardwick, quoting Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. App. 2024)
Missouri has been here before, and that case did name the cause
The authority the Western District leaned on is Kruse v. Karlen, decided by the Eastern District on February 13, 2024. That opinion is worth reading alongside this one, because it is explicit about something the Fortune opinion leaves open.
In Kruse, Presiding Judge Kurt S. Odenwald wrote that the court was dismissing because of briefing deficiencies “including the submission of fictitious cases generated by artificial intelligence.” The scale was different. Only two of the twenty-four case citations in that brief were genuine, and even those did not stand for what the appellant claimed. The opinion reproduced an example: a holding and a direct quotation attributed to Smith v. ABC Corporation, 321 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. App. 2010), a case that does not exist. Others paired real case names with invented reporter citations, which the court called the product of algorithmic serendipity.
The Eastern District dismissed that appeal and went further, awarding the respondent $10,000 in damages under Rule 84.19, which allows damages for frivolous appeals. The court noted the appellant had proceeded without a lawyer after hiring a “consultant,” acknowledged his remorse, and still concluded the respondent had been forced to spend resources identifying fabricated authority that should never have been filed.
Read together, the two decisions mark out the range of consequences. Dismissal is the floor. A monetary award to the other side is available on top of it. Neither court needed a new rule to get there.
What this means if you are handling your own case
Missouri allows self-representation, and many people use it, particularly in small claims court, where the process is designed to be accessible. The trial de novo procedure exists so that a litigant who loses in small claims gets a genuine second hearing. What these cases establish is that the accessibility built into the trial courts does not extend upward into the appellate rules.
Practical takeaways
Read every case you plan to cite, in full, from a source that shows you the actual opinion. A citation you cannot open and read is a citation you cannot use.
Confirm the case says what you believe it says. Both Missouri opinions found real cases cited for propositions they do not support, and that error drew criticism independent of the fabricated ones.
Check your pin cites. Pointing to a page that contains only procedural history is treated as a defect, not a rounding error.
Build the table of authorities from the finished brief, not from research notes, and include the page references the rule requires.
Understand what you are certifying when you sign. Rule 55.03(c) applies to a self-represented party in the same terms it applies to a lawyer.
An appeal is not the place to discover these requirements. If a case is headed toward a trial de novo or an appeal, the time to involve a lawyer is before the record closes. Our general litigation and personal injury pages describe how we approach disputes of this size, including those that begin in small claims.
What it means for lawyers, and for businesses using AI tools
The professional-responsibility side of this is settled in Missouri, even though the technology is not. Writing in the Journal of The Missouri Bar in June 2026, William C. Martucci, Burcu Erbaz, and Minha Jutt explained that Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.1, the competence rule, already requires lawyers to keep up with the benefits and risks of relevant technology, and that Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 applies that duty to generative artificial intelligence. That guidance treats an AI tool the way the rules treat a nonlawyer assistant: permissible to use, never a substitute for the lawyer’s judgment, and always subject to independent verification.
The same discipline belongs in any business running legal or quasi-legal work through an AI tool. Drafting a demand letter, summarizing a contract, or pulling authority for a position taken with a vendor or an insurer are all places where invented citations can travel a long way before anyone checks them. The exposure is not limited to court filings: a company that relies on fabricated authority in a negotiation has a problem whether or not a judge ever sees it. We work through questions like these on the technology and AI law and business litigation sides of the practice.
One narrower point in the Fortune opinion deserves emphasis. The merits were never evaluated. Fortune may have had a real grievance about his transmission, and six points were raised, but none were answered because the brief made review impossible. Whatever the underlying claim was worth, the manner of presentation ended it.
Helpful resources
The coverage below is drawn from several vantage points and labeled by ownership, so you can weigh each account and reach your own conclusion.
Missouri Courts opinion database · Office of State Courts Administrator, State of Missouri (primary source). Search the September 1, 2026 hand-down date for WD88370.
Rule 84, Procedure in All Appellate Courts · Supreme Court of Missouri (primary source). Rule 84.04 governs brief contents; Rule 84.19 governs damages for frivolous appeals.
Rule 55, Pleadings, Motions, and Hearings · Supreme Court of Missouri (primary source). Rule 55.03(c) sets out what a signature on a filing certifies.
Section 482.365, RSMo · Missouri Revisor of Statutes (primary source, codified text). Application for trial de novo from small claims court.
Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession · Journal of The Missouri Bar, June 2026 (publication of the state bar association, a professional membership organization).
Case summaries for Aug. 28 – Sept. 3, 2026 · The Missouri Bar (professional membership organization), which notes its summaries are not part of the courts’ opinions.
Related on this site: A Missouri Appeals Court Sanctioned an Attorney $1,750 for Artificial Intelligence Citations She Did Not Verify
Facing a dispute that may not stay in small claims
A short conversation early is usually cheaper than an appeal, and it is the point at which the record can still be built correctly.
Or call (314) 732-1547
This article is provided for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and it is not tax advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Haake Law Group PC or with Derek R. Haake. Court rules, statutes, and professional-conduct requirements change, and their application depends on the specific facts of a matter. Verify any authority discussed here against the current official source and consult a licensed attorney about your own situation before acting.