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
Costs later found to amount to 20,752 USD.
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Purported quotation attributed to Batson v. Salvation Army regarding FMLA adverse action, but the court could not find the quoted language in the cited Eleventh Circuit opinion and concluded it was fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Purported quotation attributed to Holly v. Clairson Indus., but the court's search found no such language in the opinion; court concluded the quotation was fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Purported quotation attributed to EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., but the court could not locate the quoted passage in that opinion or other authority; court concluded the quotation was fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Purported quotation attributed to Breen v. Dep’t of Transp., but the court found no such language in the cited D.C. Cir. opinion and concluded the passage was invented.
Judges: Harold Dean Mooty III
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Johnson requires an evidentiary hearing when material jurisdictional facts are disputed; court explained Johnson addresses attorney ethical limits on representation, not entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff asserted Galindo requires fact-finding when attorney authority or removal consent is disputed; Court found Galindo concerned disqualification in a different context and does not support Plaintiff's removal/hearing theory. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff asserted Price mandates conflict-of-interest waivers and that absent waivers the Court must hold an evidentiary hearing; Court explained Price involved different issues and did not establish such a rule for removal/disqualification proceedings. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court previously warned Plaintiff for citing nonexistent cases and/or case law that misleads; Plaintiff continued to rely on such authority.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported 2023 Ohio Supreme Court opinion 'Arron v. Arron'; the Court could not locate or confirm its existence and treated the citation as unverified.
Judges: Sarah Daggett Morrison
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's filing included a quotation attributed to Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp. that the Court could not find in that opinion; Court concluded likely AI-generated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's filing included a quotation attributed to Preston v. Ferrer that the Court could not find in that opinion; Court concluded likely AI-generated.
Judges: Madeline Hughes Haikala
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a purported Ohio case captioned 'State v. Banks'; the court could not locate such a case and determined the citation corresponded to an unrelated Sixth District zoning case (Toledo v. Heron Arizona Fund 1, LLC), concluding the 'State v. Banks' citation was fabricated or incorrect. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'State v. Stuart' as a Third District precedent; the court found that the citation actually pointed to State v. Hunter, 2021-Ohio-2020 (9th Dist.), which did not involve a guilty/no-contest plea, indicating a misrepresented citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | The court identified multiple other authorities cited by appellant that 'either do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited or appear to be fabricated or hallucinated' and declined to consider those citations.
Judges:
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Cooter & Gell to support a heightened Rule 11 standard for civil rights cases; the court found Cooter is an antitrust case and does not support that proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Magistrate previously found counsel cited fictitious cases in response to Defendant Logan's motion; specific fabricated citations are not detailed in this order. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Dodd for the statement 'Rule 11 should not be used as a litigation tactic or to chill zealous advocacy,' which the court found nowhere in the Tenth Circuit opinion.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited existing cases but attributed propositions to them that they do not support; the court found these were misrepresentations of precedent and not persuasive.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Lisenby, 374 B.R. 271 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2007)'; court found a different citation (In re Lisenby, 2006 WL 802392 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2006)) and concluded the debtor's citation was inaccurate and did not support her proposition.
Judges: Vincent F. Papalia