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: Exhibits & Submissions | AI-generated citations, quotations, and parentheticals referred to nonexistent portions of the patent's specification, figures, and prosecution history or inaccurately attributed material. The respondent acknowledged that the citations were not adequately checked and corrected them after the errors were identified.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief included a citation to a legal authority that does not exist (nonexistent authority cited in Op. Br. at 39); court assumed AI use produced the fabricated citation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Opening Brief characterized two existing cases in manners unsupported by their texts (misstatements/false attributions noted at Op. Br. 43, 45).
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained three citations to authority that do not exist; court identified them as fabricated and declined to consider them. || Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Appellant asserted numerous propositions of law not reasonably attributable to the cited authority (misattributed or misleading citations); court noted these misrepresentations and did not rely on them.
Judges:
AI-related case
Order to show cause is here; tools disclosed later (see here).
Judges: Tiffany Mae Cartwright
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) for a statute-of-limitations/continuing-violation proposition; court noted the cited opinion exists but does not discuss the statute-of-limitations or continuing-violation issues relied upon, i.e., a mischaracterization of precedent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Boling v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 105 Cal.App.3d 805 (1980); court found this case does not exist and flagged it as a fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Loving v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, 33 Cal.App.5th 444 (2019); court found this case does not exist and treated it as fabricated.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited case (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kelly, No. 20-cv-3389, 2021 WL 2661508 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2021)) does not exist as cited and the Westlaw number and docket point to unrelated cases; Court concluded it was likely AI-hallucinated.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cites Weatherly v. A.O. Smith Corp., 841 F. Supp. 2d 913, 920 (D.S.D. 2012), which the Court could not locate and determined likely to be an AI-generated fabricated opinion.
Judges: Ann Marie McIff Allen
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited non-existent case law in his brief; the appellate court admonished him for relying on fabricated authorities but declined to impose sanctions.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cites 'Ravenell v. Van Buren, 2019 WL 6619363 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2019)'; the government could not locate the case and the Court also could not find it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cites 'Hand & Hand, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 21 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D.D.C. 2014)'; the Court was unable to locate this authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief mischaracterizes and misstates holdings (e.g., describes this Court's Wolfram decision as 'denying transfer' though Wolfram transferred the case). || False Quotes: Other | Some quotations used in the opposition brief could not be located or verified by the Court.
Judges: Rudolph Contreras