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
Jean-Paul B. Kalonji v. State of Indiana
CA Indiana · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 26, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Purported quotation attributed to State v. Monfort appears to be fabricated and does not match Monfort's actual holding, per the court. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent decision 'Taylor v. State, 133 N.E.3d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)'; the court noted the citation does not correspond to a published decision and identified the actual Taylor decision (7 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)). || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant referenced a nonexistent statutory provision 'I.C. § 35-38-9-5.2' in his filings; the court flagged this as erroneous. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant mischaracterized the holding of State v. Monfort as concerning prosecutorial veto power over sentencing; the court clarified Monfort addressed abolishing a superior court and admonished the mischaracterization.
Judges:
AI-related case
Lagac v. Capital One, N.A.
C.D. California · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 22, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Opposition contains citations and quotations that do not appear to exist; the court flagged these as false/nonexistent authorities.
Judges:
AI-related case
Kings Roofing v. Fusion Works
CA Florida (6d) · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 22, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Initial Brief contained citations to several cases that appear to be fabricated; court directed counsel to produce copies of each cited case that actually exists. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Initial Brief cited cases for inaccurate legal propositions (citations that do not support the asserted legal points).
Judges:
Order to Show CauseAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Saqib Kafeel v. CJDropshipping
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Illinois · May 22, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple citations in Kafeel's filings to nonexistent cases documented in Defendant's exhibits; court found numerous fabricated case citations. || False Quotes: Case Law | Direct quotations in filings that appear to come from no real opinion; court and Defendant documented fabricated quotes. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citations and quotations that conflict with the plaintiff's claims and the record, suggesting misrepresentation of authority.
Judges: Young B. Kim
AI-related case
A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Kentucky Court of Appeals · Kentucky · May 22, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited non-existent case law (court described some cited authorities as 'non-existent'). || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant quoted language purportedly from Burke v. Sexton, but the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.
Judges: Susanne M. Cetrulo
AI-related case
Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · May 22, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Rate Technology Inc. v. Speakeasy Inc.' with an incorrect citation and relied on it for a point; the actual case (Rates Tech. Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc., 685 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2012)) concerns a settlement agreement and patent validity, not the cited proposition.
Judges: Robyn F. Tarnofsky
AI-related case
Isaiah Hunter-Bey v. City of Cleveland Law Department
CA Ohio (8d) · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 21, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included unspecified nonexistent (AI‑fabricated) case citations; the court flagged 'nonexistent cases' in the brief. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on State ex rel. Henry v. Britt but the court found the case exists and does not support appellant's stated proposition (misrepresented precedent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'McQueen' without a citation or explanation; the court could not identify which case was being relied upon (miscited/unclear citation).
Judges:
AI-related case
That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2)
E.D. California · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 21, 2026
Order to Show Cause is here. The court concluded:"After careful consideration, including the involvement of a law student at the beginning of their legal career and for the reasons stated above, the Court exercises its discretion to discharge the OSC (ECF No. 49) and declines to impose sanctions on Petitioner’s counsel Cummings or law student [XX] for counsel’s failure to fully comply with the Court’s January 13, 2026 order. The Court repeats its admonishment that while AI and generative AI tools can assist counsel and parties, these tools must be used responsibly. They should not be used to verify legal authorityand citations, especially when generative AI tools were used to generate or identify the legal authority and citations being checked."
Judges:
No Sanctions in circumstancesAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Twigg v. BSN Sports, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · Pennsylvania · May 21, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' brief contained multiple fabricated case citations; Court found fictitious opinions cited and that counsel's AI use generated persistent fake citations. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed quotations to cases where the quoted language does not appear; Court identified false quotations and rejected reliance on them. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited real cases for propositions unrelated to those cases; Court found the precedents misrepresented and not supportive of the asserted legal points.
Judges: Matthew William Brann
