Background
After the Sarpy County District Court entered the parties’ 2023 divorce decree and parenting plan, Shalah Shannon filed five applications to show cause. The decree required Jarrod Shannon to make a $21,502.59 equalization payment, pay attorney fees, share unreimbursed medical expenses, and comply with parenting-plan provisions.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Jarrod had willfully violated the decree and parenting plan. It ordered 90 days’ incarceration, subject to purge conditions, temporarily reduced his 2025 summer parenting time, and awarded Shalah $16,114.74 in attorney fees. Jarrod, representing himself, appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Supreme Court struck Jarrod’s appellate brief because it contained fabricated case citations, fabricated quotations, and inaccurate legal propositions that he acknowledged resulted from using generative AI. The court held that self-represented litigants, like attorneys, may be sanctioned for submitting nonexistent authority and misstatements of law. Given the novelty of applying that principle to a pro se party, however, it reviewed for plain error rather than dismissing the appeal.
Finding no plain error, the court affirmed. The record supported the district court’s credibility findings and its conclusion that Jarrod had willfully disobeyed the divorce decree and parenting plan. The Supreme Court also found no plain error in the civil-contempt sanction and purge conditions, the attorney-fee award, the denial of in forma pauperis status, or the rejection of Jarrod’s unpreserved impartiality challenge. Justice Stacy concurred in the result.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se litigants may be sanctioned for AI-generated fabricated citations and legal misstatements.
- A civil-contempt sanction is proper when the contemnor can comply with the order and avert punishment.
- Attorney fees may be awarded to enforce a judgment after a finding of contempt.
Why It Matters
The decision extends Nebraska’s warning against fabricated AI citations beyond lawyers to self-represented parties. While the court chose plain-error review here, it cautioned that future appeals involving such filings may be dismissed.