In the Matter of the Estate of David Simpson, Andrew Simpson v. Larry Porter
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Date FiledOctober 1, 2026
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Cite as 2026 Ark. 127
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-26-356
Opinion Delivered: October 1, 2026
ANDREW SIMPSON
PETITIONER APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT; PROBATE
DIVISION
V. [NO. 02PR-24-27]
HONORABLE ROBERT BYNUM
LARRY PORTER AND GIBSON III, JUDGE
TERESA PORTER
RESPONDENTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.
PER CURIAM
While reviewing the petition in this case, the court discovered a citation to what
appears to be a nonexistent case. On page 8 of the pro se petition for writ of mandamus,
the petitioner, Andrew Simpson, cited Biscoe v. Williams, 373 Ark. 336 (2008), for the
proposition that orders are void when a party commits fraud upon the court. However, no
legal databases return any results for an Arkansas case titled Biscoe v. Williams, and the given
citation leads to the middle of an unrelated case, Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333, 284 S.W.3d
17 (2008).
Because Biscoe v. Williams does not appear to exist, the court is concerned that this
citation was hallucinated by artificial intelligence. When someone appears pro se before this
court (or any court in the state), he is “held to the same standards as licensed attorneys with
respect to complying with the rules.” Lucas v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 365, at 8, 423 S.W.3d 580,
585. Accordingly, pro se litigants must make arguments that are “warranted by existing law
or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Ark.
R. App. P. –Civ. 11(a). Relying on nonexistent authority is a dereliction of that duty. Ark.
Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Ward, 2026 Ark. 17, at 2, 728 S.W.3d 373, 374.
Therefore, Mr. Simpson is ordered to respond to this order and provide a copy of
Biscoe v. Williams, if it exists. If the case does not exist, Mr. Simpson is ordered to explain
how he learned of Biscoe v. Williams, why he decided to cite it, and to provide good cause
for why he should not be sanctioned for citing authority that does not appear to exist. The
response to this order must be filed no later than 4:00pm on Thursday, October 15, 2026.
It is so ordered.
Special Justice CORY COX joins.
WOOD, J., concurs.
WEBB, J., not participating.
2