The Fourth DCA affirmed a final judgment in a breach of contract case but referred the appellant’s attorney to the Florida Bar after finding that the initial brief contained multiple quotations from the trial transcript that do not appear anywhere in the actual record.
The Fourth DCA imposed a filing bar on a pro se litigant in a divorce case who filed multiple AI-generated petitions containing frivolous arguments and AI-hallucinated legal propositions, holding that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys regarding the accuracy of their filings.
The Fourth DCA sanctioned an attorney and referred him to the Florida Bar for filing a certiorari petition containing fabricated case citations, finding that whether counsel used AI is irrelevant to the need for sanctions when fictitious authority is presented to the court.
The Eighth District affirmed individual maximum sentences for a jewelry store burglary but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make the disproportionality finding required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
The Seventh District held that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion does not extend the appeal deadline under App.R. 4(B), even when captioned as a Civ.R. 59 motion, leaving five of six assignments of error challenging a custody modification beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
The Ninth District reversed the trial court’s modification of a spousal support termination date, holding that after a reversal and remand, the original pending motion need not be refiled, and the trial court cannot impose new procedural requirements that did not exist before the appeal.
The Ninth District upheld an Alford plea but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make any findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences.