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
Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellee's brief cited a nonexistent case purportedly named Abadie v. District of Columbia; the attorney admitted the authority was not legitimate, and the court declined to reproduce the fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | The appellee's brief cited a nonexistent case purportedly named Cason v. National Consumer Co-op Bank; the attorney admitted the authority was not legitimate, and the court declined to reproduce the fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | The appellee's brief cited a nonexistent case purportedly named Osborne v. District of Columbia; the attorney admitted the authority was not legitimate, and the court declined to reproduce the fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | The appellee's brief cited a nonexistent case purportedly named Woods v. United States; the attorney admitted the authority was not legitimate, and the court declined to reproduce the fabricated citation.
Judges: Catharine F. Easterly, Vijay Shanker
AI-related case
Sea Swivel Inc. v. Shuttleslide LLC, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Florida · Sep 2, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | The response asserted that Affordable Aerial Photography established that Plaintiff’s motion to strike was untimely. The Court explained that the cited decision expressly declined to decide whether a renewed 21-day period applied and therefore did not support that proposition.
Judges: Yeney Hernandez
AI-related case
Woodley v. Gottschall
SC Pennsylvania · Jurisdiction not recorded · Sep 1, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited In re G.B.K. as a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, but the cited page contained headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case and no reported Pennsylvania case with that caption existed. || Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited Commonwealth v. Drahus as a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, but the cited page was the beginning of a New Hampshire constructive-trust case and no reported Pennsylvania case with that caption existed.
Judges:
The court identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed.Attribution unresolvedParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Willie C. Fortune v. CTA Certified Transmission
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District · Missouri · Sep 1, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited three completely fictitious cases in his brief. One was cited five times, another twice, and the third once; the court found that the nonexistent authorities constituted spurious citations and a flagrant violation of the duty of candor. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The appellant repeatedly cited real cases for propositions unrelated to the legal issues and substantively misstated the legal propositions stated in other cited cases. The court characterized these misrepresentations as an abuse of the judicial system. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The appellant used inaccurate pin cites, including citations to factual and procedural-history pages that contained no supporting legal proposition.
Judges: Janet Sutton, Lisa White Hardwick
Appeal dismissed for pervasive briefing deficiencies, fictitious cases, and inaccurate legal citations.Party using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
State of Hawaii v. Cody Presti
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Hawaii · Aug 31, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited 'Stroud V people (Colo.)'; court's search returned zero appellate opinions from Colorado under that name. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited 'State v. Pune, 94 Hawaii 200 (2000)'; court found no such published opinion and Westlaw returned zero results for 'State v. Pune.' || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited 'State V. Ah Mook Sang' which Westlaw returned no results; court found no appellate opinion by that name. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited 'State v. Eichman, 74 Wash. App. 479, 874 P.2d 646 (1994)'; court found the citation pointed to unrelated or different opinions and no matching authority supporting appellant's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited 'State v. Washington, 125 Or. App. 406, 865 P.2d 474 (1993)'; court found the citation led to an unrelated case (State v. Nilsen) and the proposition cited contradicted Oregon precedent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited 'People v. Babich, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (2011)'; court found the citation corresponded to a different reported sequence (192 Cal. App. 4th 1409) and the referenced proposition did not match. || Fabricate…
Judges: Keith K. Hiraoka, Kimberly T. Guidry, Sonja M.P. McCullen
AI-related case
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shona L. Williams v. Samuel R. Lee, II
CA Illinois · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 31, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the sole authority cited in the brief, In re Marriage of Whittaker, did not exist and appeared to be fabricated or hallucinated through generative AI. The court noted that this violated the supreme court’s AI policy and could support sanctions, but it declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief.
Judges:
Dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appealAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · Georgia · Aug 28, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | One of four cited authorities was determined to be a nonexistent case relied upon to support a legal proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | A second highlighted authority was a fabricated case citation included in filings and cited for legal propositions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | A third authority was an existing case whose content was misrepresented or quoted inaccurately to support counsel's position. || Misrepresented: Case Law | A fourth authority consisted of misleading or false statements about the holdings of a real case authority.
Judges: Steven Daniel Grimberg
AI-related case
Charlie Reyes v. Bryce Bailey, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico · New Mexico · Aug 28, 2026
Plaintiff (pro se) admitted he miscited a case in his Amended Complaint. Defendants reasonably alleged the citation may have been fabricated. The Court found the defendants' contention reasonable given the plaintiff's admission, but declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions, concluding there was no violation and that other alleged defects did not warrant sanctions.
Judges: Kenneth John Gonzales
