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 | Appellant's brief included two cited cases that the court determined do not exist; the court struck each such citation and treated them as AI-generated fabrications. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained multiple mis-citations and misstatements of existing cases (wrong pages/paragraphs, misstated rules, and misrepresented case facts); the court struck these inaccurate citations.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's briefing contained fictitious caselaw likely produced by generative AI; court noted the error and admonished verification.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney Jae S. Lee included a citation to a non-existent case generated by GPT-3.5 in a reply brief; the Second Circuit referred Lee to the Grievance Panel and Committee for that fabricated citation and the court treated the referral as a judicial act within its jurisdiction.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case Webb v. Frawley, 392 F.3d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 2004); the court observed that this citation is incorrect and that the real Webb v. Frawley is 906 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2018), which does not support the cited proposition.
Judges: Sunil Ramesh Harjani
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney cited 'In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 870 F.2d 343' for attorney-client privilege; court found the citation incorrect/misused—the reported case is Grubbs v. Norris, 870 F.2d 343 (6th Cir.), which does not support the asserted privilege proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Motion quoted 'premature and unauthorized substitute for formal discovery' attributed to In re Dinnubilo; court found the direct quotation does not exist in Dinnubilo or other published opinions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion claimed Table Talk supports limiting Rule 2004 due to 'disproportionate burdens on non-debtor third parties'; court found this was a misrepresentation and that Table Talk rejects the argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Motion attributed the statement that Rule 2004 is inappropriate 'when a specific dispute has matured...' to In re Symington; court found the quotation does not appear in Symington. || Fabricated: Case Law | Motion quoted that Rule 2004 'may not be used as a device for discovery in anticipated litigation' and cited Wilcher and Bennett Funding Group; court found the phrasing/quotation does not exist in those opinions and was misleading.
Judges: Eduardo V. Rodriguez
AI-related case
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff cited 'Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(5)' to demand redaction of her address; the Court found that this subsection does not exist and rejected the sealing request.
Judges: Matthew James Maddox
AI-related case
The court found Attorney Erin Rich submitted briefings that contained false or embellished factual statements drawn from medical records (e.g., misstating a speech-therapy note, misdating primary-care records, and asserting “numerous seizures” when the record showed a single generalized seizure). Rich admitted reliance on prior work product and that her firm occasionally uses AI to summarize records, but could not identify a specific tool. The court held the falsities violated Rule 11, found the conduct willful within the firm’s chain of command, and imposed non-monetary sanctions (CLE courses including ethics/AI topics and an order to review pending motions) to deter repetition.
Judges: Patricia T. Morris
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Lockheed Martin Corp., ASBCA No. 57525, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 to support that contract interpretation is a question of law for summary judgment; Board found the citation fictitious/miscited and that 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 actually addresses Raytheon Missile Systems (a jurisdiction motion), and Lockheed Martin appears at 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,017 which does not support the asserted proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Metric Constructors, Inc., ASBCA No. 50843, 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,134 to support that warranties may not be expanded beyond express terms; Board found the citation fictitious and that 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,134 actually addresses Bean Horizon-Weeks Marine and does not concern warranties (Metric Constructors appears at 98-2 BCA ¶ 30,088 and does not support the assertion). || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Blinderman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 55770, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,257 to support warranty principles; Board found the citation fictitious—09-2 BCA ¶ 34,257 corresponds to Vibration and Sound Solutions and does not address warranties, and ASBCA No. 55770 is the docket for AMES Corp., which settled without a decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appel…
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | One of two case citations in Plaintiffs' original motion was identified by Defendants as a 'hallucinated' (fabricated) case citation; the amended motion removed it and the court did not analyze the citation on the merits. || Fabricated: Case Law | The second case citation in Plaintiffs' original motion was likewise identified by Defendants as 'hallucinated' (fabricated); it was omitted from the corrected amended motion and received no substantive judicial analysis.
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief included at least five non-existent quotations attributed to Eleventh Circuit opinions. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cited two non-existent court opinions.
Judges: Embry Jerode Kidd