Hrdlichka v. Bengston, No. CV-25-106 (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Patrick Hrdlichka v. Samantha Bengston
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Arkansas (AR)
Court
Arkansas Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
Stephanie Potter Barrett (J.) (unanimous Court)
PATRICK HRDLICHKA APPELLANT v. SAMANTHA..., Not Reported in S.W....2026 Ark. App. 205 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 Ark. App. 205SEE REVISED SUPREME COURT RULE 5-2 FOR THEPRECEDENTIAL VALUE OF OPINIONS.Court of Appeals of Arkansas.PATRICK HRDLICHKA APPELLANTv.SAMANTHA BENGSTON APPELLEENo. CV-25-106|Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUITCOURT [NO. 04CV-23-3080] HONORABLE JOHN R.SCOTT, JUDGEDISMISSEDAttorneys and Law FirmsPatrick Hrdlichka, pro se appellant.One brief only.OpinionSTEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge*1 Patrick Hrdlichka, pro se, appeals from the BentonCounty Circuit Court order awarding appellee, SamanthaBengtson, $10,000.00 in compensatory damages as wellas $237.50 in costs under Arkansas Code Annotatedsection 16-118-107 (Repl. 2016). On appeal, Hrdlichkaargues (1) the circuit court incorrectly applied ArkansasCode Annotated section 16-118-107; (2) there was noevidence of felony conduct introduced, so he cannot beliable under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-118-107;(3) compensatory damages were awarded without meetingthe standard of preponderance of the evidence; (4) thecircuit court's interpretation of Arkansas Code Annotatedsection 16-118-107 contradicts well-established Arkansasjurisprudence; and (5) the court's ruling violates hisconstitutional guarantee to equal protection under article 2,section 3 of the Arkansas Constitution. Bengtson did not filea response brief in this appeal. Due to numerous fatal briefingdeficiencies under the Rules of the Supreme Court and Courtof Appeals and Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil that prevent us from engaging in meaningful review,including the submission of fictitious cases, we dismiss theappeal.On November 7, 2023, Bengtson filed a complaint in theBenton County Circuit Court alleging that on the night ofFebruary 3, 2022, Hrdlichka committed a felonious second-degree battery against her, and she suffered damages as aresult. Bengtson sought to recover damages under ArkansasCode Annotated section 16-118-107, which allows for crimevictims to seek damages in a civil action. After a benchtrial, the circuit court denied Bengtson's request for punitivedamages but awarded Bengtson $10,000.00 in compensatorydamages plus interest at the rate of 5 percent until paid plusthe cost of the service and filing fees. Hrdlichka did not objectto the court's award of damages. On November 1, 2024, thecircuit court entered its written judgment awarding Bengtson$10,000.00 in compensatory damages and an additional$237.50 in costs.The standard of review on appeal from a bench trial is whetherthe court's findings were clearly erroneous or clearly againstthe preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., El Paso Prod.Co. v. Blanchard, 371 Ark. 634, 640, 269 S.W.3d 362, 368(2008). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although thereis evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entireevidence is left with a firm conviction that an error has beenmade. Id. Facts in dispute and determinations of credibilityare solely within the province of the fact-finder. Id.The present appeal contains multiple fatal briefingdeficiencies that prevent us from conducting a meaningfulreview. Parties appearing pro se, like Hrdlichka, receive nospecial consideration of their argument and are held to thesame standard as licensed attorneys. See Perry v. State, 287Ark. 384, 699 S.W.2d 739 (1985).Hrdlichka's brief fails to comply with Rule 4-2 of theRules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appealsin numerous respects. Rule 4-2(a) prescribes the requiredcontents and organization of an appellant's brief, and thedeficiencies here are pervasive. The points on appeal andthe table of contents are not arranged in the order requiredby the rule. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(2)–(3). The statementof facts fails to include citations to the record for nearlythe entirety of the narrative and omits essential proceduralhistory necessary for appellate review. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6). Instead of presenting a unified statement of the case andthe facts as contemplated by the rule, Hrdlichka includes aseparate paragraph labeled “Statement of the Case,” further
PATRICK HRDLICHKA APPELLANT v. SAMANTHA..., Not Reported in S.W....2026 Ark. App. 205 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2departing from the prescribed structure. Id. Moreover, theargument section is not presented under clear subheadingsnumbered to correspond with the points on appeal. Rule4-2(a)(7) requires that each argument be set out under aseparate, clearly designated heading that corresponds to thepoint relied on. This requirement ensures that the court andopposing parties may readily identify the issues presentedfor review. Hrdlichka's failure to organize the argument inthis manner renders the brief difficult to follow and inhibitsmeaningful appellate consideration. Although any one ofthe above-described deficiencies, viewed in isolation, mightappear technical or minor, taken together they reflect acomplete failure to comply with Rule 4-2.*2 Even more concerning to this court is the fact Hrdlichkacites multiple cases that, upon review, do not exist. Theauthorities relied on in support of his arguments are not foundin the Arkansas Reports, the South Western Reporter, orany recognized legal database. In short, they are fictitious.We cannot evaluate arguments predicated on nonexistentprecedent. The appellate process depends on accurate citationto existing authority so that we may assess the legalfoundation of a party's claims. When a party cites fabricatedcases, we are deprived of any meaningful ability to conductreview. Fictitious citations fail to comply with Rule 4-2 ofthe Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and AppellateCourt. Rule 4-2(a)(7) requires that arguments contain citationto authority relied on and that citations conform to therequired format. This rule is not aspirational. It ensures clarity,uniformity, and fairness in our appellate process. Hrdlichka'scitations do not conform to the rule's formatting requirementsand, more critically, do not correspond to any real authority.Additionally, all counsel appearing before this court arebound to exercise professional judgment and responsibilityand to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Amongother obligations, Rule 11 provides that by presenting asubmission to the court, an attorney certifies “to the best of hisknowledge, information and belief formed after reasonableinquiry, the document is well grounded in fact [and] iswarranted by existing law or a good faith argument for theextension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Ark. R.App. P.–Civ. 11(a). At the very least, the duties imposed byRule 11 require that parties read, and thereby confirm theexistence and validity of, the legal authorities on which theyrely. Indeed, we can think of no other way to ensure that thearguments made based on those authorities are “warranted byexisting law.” Id. R. 11(a). These significant violations of ourrules mandate dismissal of this appeal.We further take this opportunity to address a growingand troubling practice: the submission of appellate briefsgenerated in whole or in part through artificial-intelligencetools that contain fabricated, inaccurate, or nonexistent legalcitations. This practice presents serious risks to the integrityof judicial proceedings and undermines the administration ofjustice.First, the appellate process depends on accuracy. Appellatecourts review legal arguments grounded in establishedauthority. When a party cites precedent, the court must beable to rely on the representation that the authority exists,that it stands for the proposition asserted, and that it hasnot been mischaracterized. Fabricated citations—whethercreated intentionally or through unverified use of artificialintelligence—waste judicial resources, delay resolution ofcases, and erode confidence in the judicial system.Second, all litigants, including pro se appellants, bearresponsibility for the contents of their filings. The useof artificial intelligence does not relieve a litigant of theduty to verify the accuracy of citations. A brief containingnonexistent cases is no different, in effect, from a briefcontaining invented precedent.Third, the court emphasizes that technology, includingartificial intelligence, is not a substitute for legal judgment,verification, and professional diligence. For these reasons, thecourt strongly discourages pro se appellants and attorneysfrom submitting artificial-intelligence-generated argumentswithout thorough verification. The integrity of the appellateprocess depends on the reliability of the record and theauthenticity of the law cited. That responsibility remainssquarely with the party who signs and submits the brief.Filings that contain fabricated or materially inaccuratecitations may be struck, and appropriate sanctions, such asdismissal, may be imposed where warranted.Finally, filing an appellate brief with fictitious citations in thiscourt, for any reason, is a flagrant violation of the duties ofcandor Hrdlichka and every other appellant owes to this court.We regret that Hrdlichka has given us our first opportunity toconsider the impact of fictitious cases being submitted to thiscourt, an issue that has gained national attention in the risingavailability of artificial intelligence. “Citing nonexistent caselaw or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making afalse statement to a court[;] [i]t does not matter if [generativeA.I.] told you so.” Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm &
PATRICK HRDLICHKA APPELLANT v. SAMANTHA..., Not Reported in S.W....2026 Ark. App. 205 © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Daniel G. Brown, Is Disclosure and Certification of the Use ofGenerative AI Really Necessary? 107 Judicature, no. 2, 2023,at 68, 75. As a federal district court in New York recentlynoted,*3 A fake opinion is not “existing law” and citation toa fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous groundfor extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or forestablishing new law. An attempt to persuade a court oroppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuseof the adversary system.Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 461 (S.D.N.Y.2023) (internal citation omitted) (dismissing a filing andsanctioning a party for submitting bogus legal citationsgenerated by ChatGPT); see also Model Rule of Prof'lConduct 3.3 (Am. Bar. Ass'n 2025) (imposing an ethicalduty to demonstrate candor to the courts and prohibiting themaking of false statements of material fact or law). To protectthe integrity of the justice system, courts around the countryhave been considering and enacting local rules specificallygeared towards prohibiting or disclosing the use of generativeartificial intelligence in court filings. We urge all partiespracticing before this court, barred and self-represented alike,to be cognizant that we are aware of the issue and will notpermit fraud on this court in violation of our rules.Dismissed.Klappenbach, C.J., and Brown, J., agree.All CitationsNot Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2026 Ark. App. 205, 2026 WL886645End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access