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
Downing v. Dwayne Brown, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · National federal courts · May 20, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation to a real decision (In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2003)) that the court found is not in that opinion—the quotation appears to be fabricated or misattributed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent precedent—United States v. Jones, 29 F.4th 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2022)—and attributed a quotation to it; the court found the precedent and quoted text do not exist.
Judges: Nancy Gbana Abudu
AI-related case
Landberg v City of New York
App. NY (2d) · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 20, 2026
Subsequent oral argument discussed the incident, see here.
Judges:
Order to Show CauseAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Brandy Dorsey v. Walter Livramento, III
Appellate Court of Maryland · Maryland · May 20, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited an inexistent opinion; court struck the related argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified and struck from the brief; court noted reporter citations corresponded to different cases. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a cited case that does not exist; court struck the portion of the brief relying on it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent appellate decision as authority; court struck the assertion based on that citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case; court noted the citation irregularity and struck the portion relying on it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not exist under the given citation; court struck the portion relying on it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited a real case but for a proposition the case does not support; the court explained the cited decision addressed a different subject.
Judges: Rosalyn Tang
AI-related case
Curtin v. Watts, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · North Carolina · May 20, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Sinochem inaccurately, claiming it held that a court lacking jurisdiction "must dismiss, it cannot transfer." The court found this quotation fabricated and contrary to Sinochem, 549 U.S. 422 (2007). || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff misquoted Christianson as stating a transferee court "should not revisit a jurisdictional ruling made by a coordinate court unless it is clearly erroneous," which the court found to be a fabrication of Christianson, 486 U.S. 800 (1988).
Judges: Thomas D. Schroeder
AI-related case
Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia · Virginia · May 20, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs repeatedly cited a non-existent opinion 'Peal v. Commonwealth' as supporting a foundational probable-cause requirement; court found the case does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Ford v. City of Alexandria, 37 Va. App. 819 (2002)', which the court determined is not an existing opinion cited in that form. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on 'Lafayette v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 454 (1999)'; court determined the cited authority does not exist. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiffs misquoted Virginia Code § 19.2-72 to assert a categorical requirement of a sworn, written probable-cause affidavit for misdemeanor warrants; court corrected that the statute does not impose that written-affidavit requirement when the complainant is a law-enforcement officer. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted McCary v. Commonwealth for the proposition that 'Probable cause must appear within the four corners of the written affidavit or recorded testimony presented to the magistrate,' but the court found McCary does not contain that language and was misused. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Anderson v. Commo…
Judges: Michael Francis Urbanski
AI-related case
REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · Oregon · May 19, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 34) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 40). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Response to Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 36) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 41).
Judges: Stacie F. Beckerman
Order to provide certification with every future filingParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · May 19, 2026
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Defense Counsel cited a non-sourced authority "§ 3.01 Certification Is Crucial Step In Class Actions," which the Court found resulted from AI hallucination and lacked any identifiable source. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense Counsel repeatedly relied on OConner and Haider to argue that third-party communications could not be attributed to defendants; the Court found these cases irrelevant to the agency/attribution issue and thus misapplied.
Judges: Katherine Polk Failla
