Published opinion, 22 July 2026 · source · PDF · 8 pages
But nothing about the State’s citation to Benskin in its trial brief breached that duty. Even if the citation form was incomplete, the case was neither hallucinated nor “suspicious.” What’s more, the State cited the case for the familiar proposition that “[m]otions to dismiss are disfavored.” Benskin, 952 N.W.2d at 296. Thus, the district court did not act with prejudice by refusing to require the defendants to disclose any use of artificial intelligence.