Background
Timothy Jakob Stokka appealed a district court judgment and related orders arising from divorce and custody proceedings against his former wife, Laura Lynne Raile (formerly Stokka), in Cass County, North Dakota. The district court had entered judgment pursuant to a marital termination agreement and subsequently designated Stokka a vexatious litigant under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. Rule 58.
On appeal, Stokka raised a broad array of challenges: he argued the marital termination agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, that the judgment was void because a parenting time orientation requirement was never enforced, that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for contempt, reconsideration, and sanctions, that child support was miscalculated, and that the court’s rulings violated his constitutional due process and equal protection rights.
Raile responded that Stokka’s arguments were inadequately briefed. The Supreme Court agreed and declined to reach the merits of any issue.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8), which permits summary affirmance when an appellant’s brief fails to meet the minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28(b). The court found Stokka’s brief fatally deficient on two independent grounds: it lacked citations to the evidentiary record in support of his factual assertions, and the legal authorities it did cite were either irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent.
The court expressly noted that fake or nonexistent citations of the type appearing in Stokka’s brief are typically the product of AI hallucinations, citing its recent decision in City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, ¶¶ 16, 19, 31 N.W.3d 672, in which the court had sanctioned an attorney $500 for the same problem. Because Stokka’s brief did not satisfy the threshold requirements of a statement of facts with record citations and a legal argument supported by relevant authorities, the court declined to address any of the issues he raised.
In addition to affirming the judgment, the court awarded Raile double costs and attorney’s fees in the fixed amount of $1,000, exercising its discretion under Kantola v. Kantola, 2026 ND 57, ¶ 3, 32 N.W.3d 324, where documentation of actual fees does not accompany the filing.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s brief that omits record citations and relies on fictitious or nonexistent legal authorities does not satisfy the minimum briefing requirements under N.D.R.App.P. 28, and the appeal will be summarily affirmed without reaching the merits.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court has now twice in 2026 explicitly flagged AI-generated hallucinated citations as a recognized form of appellate misconduct, signaling an increasingly firm stance on the issue.
- Courts may impose monetary sanctions — here $1,000 in double costs and fees — on parties who file non-compliant briefs containing fabricated legal citations, even when the filer is self-represented.
- Raising numerous issues on appeal without adequate supporting argument or authority constitutes waiver of all those issues under North Dakota law.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of a small but growing line of North Dakota authority holding litigants — including self-represented parties — accountable for submitting briefs that contain AI-hallucinated citations. By pairing summary affirmance with a $1,000 sanction and explicitly cross-referencing Helgeson, the court signals that it views fabricated citations as a systemic problem warranting consistent, escalating deterrence rather than mere correction.
For practitioners and self-represented litigants alike, the case is a pointed reminder that North Dakota appellate rules impose non-negotiable baseline requirements: factual assertions must be tied to the record, and legal arguments must rest on real, relevant authority. Failure on either score — regardless of how many issues are raised — forecloses appellate review entirely and risks fee-shifting sanctions on top.