Search 1,395 source-linked cases involving fabricated citations and other AI-generated legal errors.
837 judge-case associations across 551 judges and 164 courts.
Source: Damien Charlotin
Case screener
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | The amended initial brief cited seven non-existent cases, collectively cited at least twenty times. The court identified them as fabricated authorities but did not list their names or citations in the opinion.
Judges: Dan Traver, John K. Stargel
AI-related case
Order to Show Cause is here.
Judges: Ted Stewart
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | The Court stated that Carter continued to use case law that did not support the propositions for which it was cited, but did not identify individual citations or explain the deficiencies in each authority.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | The district court found that Asiedu cited nonexistent cases in his filings; the appellate opinion confirms that these citations did not constitute existing law but does not identify them individually. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The district court found that Asiedu repeatedly cited caselaw for legal propositions it did not support, misleading the court; the appellate court upheld the finding but did not identify the individual misrepresented precedents.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited two nonexistent or incorrectly cited cases to support the proposition that all litigation involving one family must be heard by a single court. The court could not identify authority supporting that proposition and found that the citations misrepresented the law.
Judges: Michael S. Wright
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | The Court stated that Plaintiff cited an apparently nonexistent Second Circuit case in his opposition; the citation was part of the Court’s discussion of the filings’ confusion and supported its Rule 8 analysis. || Fabricated: Case Law | The Court stated that Plaintiff cited an apparently nonexistent District of Columbia case in his opposition; the citation was part of the Court’s discussion of the filings’ confusion and supported its Rule 8 analysis.
Judges: Mary Kay Vyskocil
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a nonexistent federal case as authority; the error was identified by Turo and acknowledged by G.P., who replaced it with a California Court of Appeal decision. The court referred to the authority as apparently fabricated and did not impose sanctions.
Judges: Kymberly Kathryn Evanson
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law
Judges: Susan Davis Wigenton
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | The motion placed in quotation marks language attributing personal trademark-infringement liability to an individual who was the “moving, active conscious force behind the [defendant’s] infringement.” The Court stated that Yost does not contain that language and instead says an officer may be liable for torts he “authorizes or directs or in which he participates.” || Misrepresented: Case Law | The motion attributed to Cumulus Media a successor-in-interest priority proposition that the Court could not locate in the cited pages, which principally address abandonment. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The reply represented that Complaint paragraph 21 alleged that Niles engaged musicians for specific shows, selected the band name, and organized and controlled the enterprise. The Court found those allegations were not in paragraph 21 and noted that “engaged” did not appear there. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The reply relied on the absence of partnership documents while citing Barr, although Barr states that “[f]ormalities of quasi-corporate organization are not required.” || False Quotes: Case Law | The preliminary-injunction opposition attributed a…
Judges: Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.