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 | Opposition contained multiple case citations the Court could not locate on Westlaw; counsel later confirmed clerical/research errors and the Court suggested possible improper AI use. || False Quotes: Case Law | Opposition included quotations attributed to cases that the Court could not verify; the quotations were inaccurate or unlocatable.
Judges: Ann Marie McIff Allen
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation to a case titled Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., 35 F.3d 1134 (6th Cir. 1994) is not a real case and likely AI-generated; court warned that citing fake cases is sanctionable. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted United States v. Robinson, 305 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002) appears to be a fabricated citation generated by AI and warned the plaintiff may be sanctioned for continued use of fake citations.
Judges: Susan Kim DeClercq
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'Tubra v. Cooke, 233 Or App 339, 225 P3d 862 (2010)' for an anti‑SLAPP proposition; court found the cited case does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief attributed de novo‑review language and standards to Neumann v. Liles; court found Neumann does not state the claimed proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief quoted Staten v. Steel as supporting a broad rule that private employment disputes are not matters of public interest; court found Staten does not say that. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief relied on Davoodian v. Rivera and similar citations for propositions or quotations the court identified as omitted or unsupported; listed among problematic citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief invoked Handy v. Lane for a proposition about government transparency and accountability that the court found Handy did not contain or emphasize as claimed.
Judges: Erin C Lagesen
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited a non-existent opinion purportedly from the Corpus Christi court; the Bank pointed it out and the court's research verified it does not exist.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted a nonexistent case citation asserted to support that civil conspiracy is a 'parasitic tort'; court could not find the case in reporters or Lexis and found the reporter number corresponded to an unrelated case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a real case for a proposition the case does not discuss (distinguishing a continuous tort from a single act with continuous effects); court found the authority did not support the asserted rule.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Promovidas attributed an ad verbatim quote to 'Suárez v. CMI Caribe, 180 DPR 367, 376 (2010)' that the Court found did not exist or was incorrectly attributed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Promovidas cited 'Otero-Burgos v. Inter Med. Supplies, Inc., 137 DPR 841, 848 (1995)' and attributed a direct quote which the record shows was nonexistent or misattributed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Promovidas cited 'Pérez v. Horizon Lines, 2020 TSPR 61' with an asserted quotation about Ley 100 that the Court determined was incorrectly attributed or nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Promovidas attributed to 'Rosado v. ELA, 2004 TSPR 13' a textual statement on Ley 115 that the Court found was not supported by the cited decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Promovidas cited 'Colón v. Romero Barceló, 112 DPR 573 (1982)' and ascribed a direct quotation regarding Artículo 1802 which the Court found did not appear as quoted in that decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Promovidas cited 'Ramos Lozada v. E.L.A., 174 DPR 650 (2008)' attributing a quote on qualified immunity that the Court determined was incorrectly attributed or nonexistent.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited “Jarrod Johnson v. Water Light & Sinking Fund Comm’n…, 74 F.4th 1308, 1313–17 (11th Cir. 2023)” for PFAS-standing language; court found the citation led to unrelated authority and the claimed PFAS discussion does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted Gonsalvez but the court identified the passage as a misquote/false quote that did not match the actual language of Gonsalvez v. Celebrity Cruises. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a shortened/altered quotation to Ex parte Abbott Laboratories that materially differed from the actual opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted Ex parte McKesson Corporation in a way that the court identified as an inaccurate or edited quotation not matching the opinion's actual language. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on Cook v. Randolph Cty., 573 F.3d 1143, 1150-51 (11th Cir. 2009) to support a Rule 15 amendment entitlement, but Cook concerned remand and summary judgment—not Rule 15 amendment standards; the case was misread/misapplied. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Payton v. Monsanto, 801 So. 2d 829, 835-36 (Ala. 2001) claiming it sup…
Judges: Corey Landon Maze
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | At least one cited authority in Rajan's omnibus motion was made up (AI-generated); the Court found a made-up case among his citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Multiple cited authorities were erroneous or did not support the propositions for which they were cited; Court found Rajan failed to verify these AI-generated citations.
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant provided fictitious quotations purportedly from existing cases; court found these quotations to be invented and rebuked the lack of candor. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant included invented or 'hallucinated' citations in his briefing; court noted these citations were fabricated or generated by AI or other sources.
Judges: