Jump to content

Washington v Justice

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Washington v. Justice
Court Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Docket 2D2025-2678; underlying 24-CA-010301
Filed Appeal filing date not identified in the reviewed opinion
Judge(s) Northcutt, Kelly and Morris (per curiam); circuit judge Kemba Damali Johnson Lewis
Plaintiffs LaVonne Washington and Michael Washington (appellants)
Defendants Gina Justice and Victor Crist (appellees); Crist solely in his official clerk capacity
Case type Appeal; sanctions for fictitious citations
Claims / issues Citation accuracy, appellate sanctions and restrictions on related future filings
Status October 7, 2026 opinion dismisses appeal in operative reasoning and restricts related filings; opinion subject to revision

Washington v. Justice concerns a Florida appeal in which a self-represented couple's brief cited eleven nonexistent cases. On October 7, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal under its sanctions authority and restricted future filings related to the underlying action. The court considered generative AI a likely source of the fictitious citations.[1]

Background and citation review

LaVonne and Michael Washington appealed the dismissal of their complaint against Gina Justice and Victor Crist, the latter solely in his official capacity as Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller. The underlying circuit-court case was No. 24-CA-010301.[1]

After identifying eleven nonexistent cases in the initial brief, the appellate court ordered the Washingtons to provide copies of the cited decisions or explain why sanctions should not be imposed. The opinion describes their response as inadequate. The Washingtons neither admitted nor denied using generative AI; the court found it a likely explanation for the fictitious authorities.[1]

October 7, 2026 disposition

The court relied on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), the Washingtons' response to the show-cause order and their pattern of frivolous filings. It explained that pre-existing sanctions authority supported the disposition independently of amendments to rule 2.515 governing accuracy in signed filings.[1]

The opinion's operative reasoning dismisses the appeal. It directs the clerk to place future notices of appeal or original proceedings related to underlying case 24-CA-010301 in an inactive file unless signed by a Florida Bar member in good standing or related to a proceeding already pending when the opinion issued. The directive is limited to the underlying action. The opinion ends with the printed disposition “Affirmed” and is subject to revision before official publication.[1]

References