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
Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply contained citation errors/misstated case law identified by opposing counsel and acknowledged in Debtor's Corrective Notice; court found the citations were not warranted by existing law under Rule 9011(b)(2).
Judges: Scott M. Grossman
AI-related case
Counsel's subsequent explanation can be found here.
Judges: Susan Yvonne Illston
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Briefs cited numerous non-existent cases; court found multiple fabricated citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Briefs frequently quoted case law for propositions that do not appear in the cited cases (misquotations/misrepresentations).
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | The brief contained inaccurate quotations attributed to cases; Court found quotations were incorrect or misleading. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citations were used for propositions the cited cases did not support (misrepresenting holdings/authority). || Fabricated: Case Law | Brief included citations to nonexistent authority (fake cases); Court independently verified and found the cases do not exist.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Lipscomb v. Dep’t of the Army, 301 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002), which the court found does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's brief lists additional apparently fraudulent or erroneous citations in the petitioner's filings (specified at Resp’t’s Br. 10–11 & n.5).
Judges: Kara Farnandez Stoll, Timothy B. Dyk
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel relied on at least one nonexistent case; the court found that at least one cited authority did not exist. || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Counsel relied on a Supreme Court case that the court described as abrogated (overturned); the court noted the reliance on an abrogated precedent.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Other | The SAC contains a reference to 'Sheriff Owens' who is not named elsewhere in the pleadings; the court identified this as likely a GenAI-hallucinated factual insertion. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The SAC contains multiple apparent GenAI responses (cited at SAC 2:19-21, 3:26-28, 4:25-28, 6:22-24, 7:11-13) that the court said raise concern that facts or legal authority may have been made up.
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Opposition brief contains quotations attributed to real cases, but the quotations are fabricated; Defendants listed numerous examples (Reply at 2-3) and the Court identified them. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Opposition includes inaccurate citations/quotations in a court filing suggesting use of generative AI without the required judicial disclosure; Court ordered show cause under Rule 11.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this non-existent Appellate Division decision in support of her summary judgment; court found the citation fabricated and struck the submission. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this non-existent Appellate Division decision in support of her summary judgment; court found the citation fabricated and struck the submission. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this non-existent Appellate Division decision in support of her summary judgment; court found the citation fabricated and struck the submission.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Harvey v. Harvey, 13-0253 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/30/13), 127 So.3d 156, which the Court and Respondent were unable to locate; counsel removed the citation in a supplemental brief and was ordered to produce the opinion or explain the citation and disclose any AI use.
Judges: