AI Abuse Court Cases
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
1,395Cases
837Judge-case associations
551Judges
164Courts
1,395 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Shantell Robinson v. Oglala Sioux Tribe et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · National federal courts · Jul 29, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'Reynolds v. Smith, 62 F.3d 1421 (10th Cir. 1995)'; the court identified this as a fabricated authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Navajo Nation Oil & Gas Co. v. Window Rock Unified Sch. Dist., 638 F. App'x 698 (10th Cir. 2016),' but the reporter page corresponded to a different case (Sayed v. Broman); the citation was incorrect/misrepresented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to Lewis v. Clarke that does not appear in the opinion, i.e., a misquoted/false attribution. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff admitted submitting a photo exhibit that was 'not authentic' in support of stalking allegations.
Judges: Timothy M. Tymkovich
AI-related case
Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC
S.D. Ohio · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jul 29, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se plaintiff cited a purported Sixth Circuit opinion to support his argument; the Court found no such case or Westlaw citation and determined the citation was AI‑hallucinated.
Judges:
AI-related case
Harding Place Multifamily Partners v. Samuel Robinson
Tennessee Court of Appeals · Tennessee · Jul 29, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. McClure, 199 S.W.3d 429, 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005),' but the citation points to an unrelated Texas opinion and the real McClure decision is from 1990 (No. 169, 1990 WL 6378); court treated this as an invented/misleading citation. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Appellant quoted Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-304(a)(4) with language about landlord maintenance of electrical, plumbing, and HVAC, but the actual statutory subsection concerns refuse receptacles; the brief's statutory quotation was false. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Puckett v. Estate of Puckett, 174 S.W.3d 252, 257 (Tenn. 2005),' but no Tennessee Supreme Court opinion under that name exists and the reporter page corresponds to a different Court of Appeals opinion; court treated the case name/citation as fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | The brief relied on multiple real cases but used false or misleading quotations from those decisions (unspecified individual quotations identified by the court).
Judges: Andy D. Bennett, Thomas R. Frierson II
AI-related case
Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · Colorado · Jul 29, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the authority could not be located and does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misattributed or inaccurately quoted language from cited cases and misrepresented associated legal concepts; Court no…
Judges: Kathryn A Starnella
AI-related case
Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n
CA Illinois · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jul 28, 2026
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Attorney quoted fabricated language that section 7A-102(D)(2) requires the Department to "conduct a full investigation of the allegations," which the court found does not appear in that subsection and is AI-generated. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Attorney attributed to 56 Ill. Adm. Code 5300.530(b) a rehearing/reconsideration standard (two specific grounds) that the court found was not the text of that provision and was fabricated. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Attorney misquoted section 8-111(B)(1) as providing a specific venue/jurisdictional formulation which the court determined was inaccurate and AI-generated. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Attorney claimed section 1-102(A) contains language requiring "vigorous enforcement," which the court found absent from that provision and thus a fabricated quotation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited a nonexistent case, "Harris v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 2022 IL App (1st) 210454," which the court found does not exist (the citation points to an unrelated criminal case). || False Quotes: Case Law | Attorney quoted language as appearing in Gusciara v. Lustig, Village of Oak Lawn, and Abrahamson that in fact do…
Judges:
AI-related case
Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (1)
D. Arizona · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jul 28, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Two purported direct quotations attributed to Ninth Circuit cases (identified by counsel as Saman and Mitchell) in Plaintiff's response to defendant's fee motion (Doc.155) do not appear in those cases; counsel admitted she neglected to remove quotation marks. || False Quotes: Case Law | Purported quotation attributed to United States v. Antonakeas, 255 F.3d 714 (9th Cir. 2001) in Plaintiff's 'Brief on Impeachment' (Doc.124) does not appear in Antonakeas. || False Quotes: Case Law | Purported quotation attributed to United States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) in the same brief (Doc.124) does not appear in Osazuwa. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | A quoted statutory passage attributed to 28 U.S.C. § 1924 in Doc.160 was a fabricated paraphrase presented as a direct quotation and does not match the statute's actual text.
Judges:
Order to Show CauseAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Owen v. Askew et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · Oregon · Jul 28, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant Askew relied on and then withdrew a non-existent Ninth Circuit decision cited as authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cited an incorrectly-captioned D. Or. case (wrong docket/caption) and characterized the district court's personal-jurisdiction ruling without noting the Ninth Circuit reversal.
Judges: Ann L. Aiken
AI-related case
Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · Maryland · Jul 28, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the pincite and import of Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div.; court found the plaintiff's pincites/description did not accurately represent the case though Aguilar is a real case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misdescribed the holding and import of Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs.; court found the citation was imprecise and did not support the plaintiff's asserted proposition.
Judges: Charles D Austin
AI-related case
Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., et al. v. Daniel J. Moos
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas · Texas · Jul 28, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited a non-existent N.D. Tex. opinion to support a legal proposition; Court identified only an unrelated D.N.J. case by the same name and found the cited authority provided no support.
Judges: Brian Mckay
AI-related case
Alexander M. v. Frank Bisignano
D. Maine · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jul 28, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's pleadings contained several citations to nonexistent or fabricated legal authorities; the court flagged these fabricated citations and admonished the pro se litigant to ensure citations are accurate.
Judges:
