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 | Post-trial response brief contained several citations to nonexistent cases; the court noted the citations were fabricated but did not analyze them individually.
Judges: Michael S. Wright
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | One of four cited GAO decisions could not be located; protester later admitted the citation was erroneous and introduced via research software/AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Second cited GAO decision could not be verified; GAO requested copies and protester acknowledged error from software tools. || Fabricated: Case Law | Third cited GAO decision was unlocatable; GAO found hallmarks of LLM/AI generation and protester apologized for the erroneous citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Fourth cited GAO decision could not be found; protester attributed the inclusion to software-assisted research and accepted responsibility.
Judges:
AI-related case
The pro se plaintiff cited 'Alford v. City of Canon City, 2019 WL 13202842 (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2019)' in support of her position. Defense counsel reported being unable to locate the case, and the district court confirmed the case does not exist, admonishing the plaintiff for relying on generative AI without verifying citations. While the plaintiff continued to assert that the case was real, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal and the district court's caution.
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Walker v. City of Orem that does not appear in that decision; the brief quoted: "a district court must 'consider all pending motions and develop an adequate record' before dismissal." The court noted Walker contains no such language. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a proposition to United States v. Houston that the decision does not contain; the brief claimed: "failure to address pending motions constitutes procedural error." The court stated Houston contains no such proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed the plaintiff had used multiple fabricated (nonexistent) cases in her filings (record citations at R. vol. 2 at 262–63) though the opinion does not list each fabricated citation.
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Paired real reporter citations with unrelated or nonexistent case names and attributed propositions to cases that do not support them. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Misstated statutory and regulatory authorities and attributed legal propositions to authorities that do not support them.
Judges: Robert S. Lasnik
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a nonexistent quotation to State ex rel. McCool and presented it as authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant incorrectly cites and quotes Olson, misrepresenting that authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance but relied on it improperly; court found Burnet concerns CR 37(b) and is inapplicable to the asserted point.
Judges:
AI-related case
Order and Recommendations are here.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's initial brief contained at least four fabricated case citations and numerous citations that did not support the propositions asserted; the court struck the brief and ordered an amended brief. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's reply brief contained at least two hallucinated (fabricated) citations and multiple mischaracterizations of cited cases. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellees' brief identified at least one hallucinated citation in appellant's filings and noted multiple instances where holdings were misrepresented.
Judges: Cynthia M. Barbare, Mike Lee
AI-related case
Appellate counsel for Paez Rodriguez disclosed that the opposition papers contained citations to non-existent cases. The court acknowledged the fabricated citations, noted the underlying legal propositions were accurate, and decided not to attribute the non-existent citations to appellate counsel if identical papers are filed in the related action. No sanctions or monetary penalties were imposed; the court adjusted its prior order to address procedural filing issues.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent opinion (United States v. Chawla, 453 F. Supp. 3d 571 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)); the Court could not locate the case and found the citation instead led to United States v. Bedi, which did not support the cited proposition.
Judges: Laura Taylor Swain