Gleason v. Marcus, No. 2D2024-2688 (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Christopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Florida (FL)
Court
Florida Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Per Curiam Affirmed
Panel
Kelly (J.); Rothstein-Youakim (J.); Labrit (J.)
CHRISTOPHER GLEASON, Appellant, v. JULIE MARCUS, in..., --- So.3d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1311959Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASEDFOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENTLAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT ISSUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.CHRISTOPHER GLEASON, Appellant,v.JULIE MARCUS, in her officialcapacity as Pinellas CountySupervisor of Elections, Appellee.No. 2D2024-2688|May 13, 2026Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; PatriciaA. Muscarella, Judge.Attorneys and Law FirmsChristopher Gleason, pro se.Jared D. Kahn, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Clearwater,for Appellee.OpinionPER CURIAM.*1 Christopher Gleason seeks review of a final orderdismissing his complaint with prejudice. We conclude thathis arguments lack merit, and we affirm the order withoutfurther comment on the issues raised. But we are compelledto comment on Mr. Gleason's apparent use of artificialintelligence to prepare the briefs he filed with this court.His briefs cite numerous cases that do not exist, andthey frequently quote case law for propositions that appearnowhere in the cases cited.We have cautioned on the dangers of using generativeartificial intelligence before, see, e.g., Russell v. Mells, 426So. 3d 913, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025), and we again sound thealarm. “This technology is very good at sounding right, butless adept at being right,” and “blind reliance” on it is unwise,unacceptable, and sanctionable. See Gouveia v. Meridian Fin.Invs., LLC, No. 4D2025-0843, 2026 WL 816497, at *3 (Fla.4th DCA Mar. 25, 2026) (Lott, J., concurring); see alsoGutierrez v. Gutierrez, 399 So. 3d 1185, 1187–88 (Fla. 3dDCA 2024) (sanctioning pro se litigant for citing multiplenonexistent cases in his appellate briefs).We notify Mr. Gleason that future filings of this naturewill not receive favorable treatment, and we remind alllitigants—both pro se and represented—that they must ensurethe accuracy of their filings or risk the consequences. SeeFla. R. App. P. 9.045(d); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.515(d)(2); Francois v. Vive Fin., LLC, No. 4D2025-2088, 2026WL 758289, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 18, 2026); Goya v.Hayashida, 418 So. 3d 652, 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); cf.Hessert v. Hessert, No. 6D2026-0121, 2026 WL 785016, at*2 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026) (“If and when any sucherroneous filings [containing nonexistent cases or inaccuratelegal propositions] are made ..., filers on the opposite side ofthe case should point out such errors ... in their responsivefilings or via motion.”); Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.,336 Cal. Rptr. 3d 897, 915 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) (denyingsanctions payable to opponents who “did not alert the courtto the fabricated citations” and awarding sanctions payable tothe court instead).KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and LABRIT, JJ.,Concur.All Citations--- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 1311959 (Mem)End 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