Published opinion, 22 September 2026 · source · PDF · 17 pages
Our r eview of Bushnell’s briefing reveals that most of the issues raised on appeal are unsupported by cogent argument or authority. Although Bushnell cites numerous authorities in support of her arguments , many do not support her arguments because they are fabricated or inaccurate quotations. In fact, of the twenty -two purported quotations Bushnell attributes to caselaw, statutes, court rules, pattern jury instructions, and the Idaho Constitution, only six are accurate quotations with some minor spelling er rors.
Id. Bushnell also cites two nonexistent cases : McAdam v. McAdam and Dairyland Insurance Co. v.
8 they purport to rely. Indeed, fabricated authority is more troubling than the absence of authority because it introduces false information into the judicial process . Appellate advocacy depends on the accurate and candid presentation of legal authority .
Appellate advocacy depends on the accurate and candid presentation of legal authority . Fabricated authority hinders this Court’s consideration of the issues presented, requires this Court to expend resources i dentifying and correcting false representations, and undermines the integrity of the appellate process. Many of Bushnell’s arguments on appeal depend on fabricated or misrepresented authority.
Indeed, the nature and extent of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in Bushnell’s briefing suggest that she may have relied on generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI” or “AI”) in drafting her briefs . It is well- established that such tools often “hallucinate” and generate false legal citations. See Kruse v.
App. 2024) (noting that GenAI often hallucinates or provides false authority). Based on the extent and nature of the misrepresentations in Bushnell’s briefing, we conclude that these cited authorities were not subjected to meaningful verification by Bushnell before filing.