⚡ CASE DIGEST
Volesky v. Department of Child Safety et al. — Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1, 21 January 2026
The Arizona Court of Appeals refused to consider fabricated case citations in an appellant’s brief, stating that such cases — ‘whether included by using A.I. or otherwise’ — are entirely inappropriate. The court affirmed dismissal of the pre-litigation discovery petition on the merits.
Why it matters: Arizona has adopted an explicit, technology-neutral rule: fabricated citations are never acceptable, regardless of whether AI or another method produced them.
Category: Hallucinations & Sanctions | Jurisdiction: USA | Read time: 5 min
Case at a Glance
| Full Citation | Teresa Volesky v. Department of Child Safety et al., No. 1 CA-CV 25-0423 (Ariz. App.) |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1 |
| Date of Decision | 21 January 2026 |
| Category | AI Hallucinations & Sanctions |
| Jurisdiction | USA |
| AI Tool Used | AI (referenced as possible source — technology-neutral standard applied) |
| Judgment / Order | 2026 WL 165195 |
Background
Teresa Volesky sought pre-litigation discovery from the Department of Child Safety and a hospital regarding a 2007 incident in which her child, C.H., was reported for potential abuse and later removed from her care. The superior court dismissed the petition. On appeal, Volesky’s brief cited case law that the appellate court identified as fabricated — including citations that referenced the wrong state reporter (citing a Washington case with an Arizona reporter citation) and cases that did not exist at all.
The AI Issue
The Arizona Court of Appeals confronted two types of citation errors: incorrect citations (real cases cited with wrong reporter references) and fabricated citations (cases that do not exist). The court issued a clear rule that applies regardless of the source: fabricated cases — ‘whether included by using A.I. or otherwise’ — are entirely inappropriate and will not be considered. This technology-neutral formulation is significant: Arizona treats AI-generated fabrications the same as any other type of fabricated citation.
- The court explicitly stated that fabricated citations ‘whether included by using A.I. or otherwise, are entirely inappropriate’ [technology-neutral rule].
- The court refused to consider the fabricated citations — they had no legal effect in the appeal [consequences for brief validity].
- The pre-litigation discovery dismissal was affirmed on its merits [substantive outcome].
- The decision applies an equivalent standard to AI fabrications and non-AI fabrications — treating AI as a tool, not an excuse [equal accountability].
- Child safety and child protection proceedings are confirmed as within the AI hallucination risk zone [sensitive proceedings affected].
“Fabricated cases, whether included by using A.I. or otherwise, are entirely inappropriate and we will not consider them.”
— Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Volesky v. DCS, 21 January 2026
The India Angle
Indian Law Equivalent: Under Rule 15 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, submitting fabricated or non-existent case citations before any Indian court constitutes professional misconduct and contempt. The duty to verify cited authorities is absolute — AI not create an exception.
Bar Council Rules: BCI Rule 15 (duty not to mislead the court) and Rule 33 (duty to conduct cases with integrity) are directly engaged when AI-generated hallucinated citations are filed. Disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar Council can result in suspension or removal from the roll.
Practical Advice for Indian Advocates: Verify every AI-generated citation on SCC Online, Manupatra, or IndianKanoon before filing. No AI tool — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any Indian legal AI — reliably produces accurate citations. Treat AI output as a starting point for research, not a final product.
Quick Takeaways
- The Arizona rule is clear and universal: fabricated citations are impermissible regardless of source — AI or otherwise.
- Courts will simply refuse to consider fabricated citations — they have zero legal effect and may harm the overall appeal.
- Indian advocates handling sensitive child welfare and child protection proceedings must apply the highest verification standard to all cited authorities.