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 cited 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)' for the standard of review; court found the authority actually is People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009) and labeled the citation 'hallucinated'.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants' counsel cited a non-existent case 'Com v. Reid, 770 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2001)'; the court could not locate it and called it 'counterfeit authority,' suggesting possible chatbot origin.
Judges:
AI-related case
Plaintiff’s counsel included multiple purported IACP "Training Keys" in the Fifth Amended Complaint that later could not be verified and were conceded to be the product of unverified AI-augmented research (AI hallucinations). Defendant moved for Rule 11 sanctions; the Court denied the motion on procedural grounds because the safe-harbor service requirement was not satisfied. The Court found counsel’s reliance on unverified AI-generated material irresponsible, denied sanctions, and recommended referral of the signing attorneys to the Ad Hoc Committee for potential disciplinary review.
Judges: Marty Fulgueira-Elfenbein
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that the court found does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a purported appellate opinion dated in the future; the court noted the date made the citation impossible. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that the court found does not appear to exist.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Dawkins v. Fields, 354 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2003)' to support clearly established law; the Court found no such controlling authority and treated the citation as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Iko v. Shreve, 122 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 1997)'; the Court identified this as a miscitation (likely meant Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2008)) and found the cited authority out-of-circuit and inapposite. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on 'Yates v. Terry, 817 F.3d 877 (4th Cir. 2016)' to show a clearly established rule for tasing a nonresisting arrestee; the Court treated the citation as non-controlling/out-of-circuit and materially dissimilar to the facts here. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs construed Garner to mean that any application of force against a compliant, non-threatening person is always objectively unreasonable; the Court rejected this overbroad reading as a mischaracterization of Garner.
Judges: Mark Timothy Pittman
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “In re State Street Bank and Trust Co. ERISA Litig., No. 07-cv-10907, 2009 WL 10260136, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009)”; court found the Westlaw number and caption did not correspond to a real decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “SEC v. Collins, No. 01-cv-3065, 2002 WL 31109065, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2002)”; court found no decision matching that Westlaw number or caption (noting a different SEC v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) exists but with different citation).
Judges: Victoria Reznik
AI-related case
The appellants' opening brief contained numerous citations to non-existent cases, quotations that do not appear in the authorities cited, and propositions unsupported by cited cases—hallmarks the court attributed to generative AI. The court issued an order to show cause, found the appellants failed to show cause, and sanctioned them for unreasonable violation of appellate briefing rules by ordering payment of the respondent's appellate attorney fees (amount to be set by the trial court). The court emphasized that pro se litigants remain responsible for verifying authorities and referred the matter to the State Bar to investigate potential unauthorized practice.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Filed a phantom/non-existent case citation in briefing (identified at hearing and in show-cause response). Court and opposing counsel flagged it as fake and potentially AI-generated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Misattributed language from a 2020 Supreme Court decision to Justice Scalia (who had died before 2020).
Judges: Charlotte Noelle Sweeney
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent Fourth Circuit opinion as support; court could not locate the opinion and concluded the citation was fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Maryland appellate/decisional citation that the court could not locate.
Judges: Julie Rebecca Rubin
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola v. Continental Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 858 F.2d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1988) for two propositions about affirmative defenses; the court found the Seventh Circuit opinion did not support those propositions and lacks the phrase 'affirmative defense', noting the likely intended citation was a 1983 N.D. Ill. decision, 576 F. Supp. 985.
Judges: Virginia Mary Kendall