The revised version is what appears to be the result of pruning all the AI-hallucinated citations. Or so theorizes the respondent’s brief, which says, “Appellants likely used artificial intelligence to draft the opening brief, which is known to invent legal citations out of whole cloth.” This is the 11th such case I found this year (cf. this federal case, and the state cases discussed here, here, and here—all involving documents filed by lawyers—plus the six federal self-represented litigant cases discussed here.)
Hamas reportedly nearing deal with Israel to free some hostages
The appellant’s motion to strike (filed well before the Respondent’s Brief) doesn’t mention AI or otherwise explain the reason for the fake citations: