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
Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that its April 9, 2026 Motion contained AI-generated inaccuracies including fabricated and misquoted case citations. The firm apologized, identified and corrected the errors in Schedule A, undertook remedial measures, and filed corrected papers. The issue was brought to the firm's attention by opposing counsel (Boies Schiller Flexner).
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's filing included a completely hallucinated (fabricated) case citation generated by AI; court noted existence of a fabricated cite but the specific citation string was not provided in the opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Several authorities cited by Defendant (from AI assistance) did not support the propositions for which they were cited; court found these citations were misrepresentations resulting from unverified AI use.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's reply brief relied on a fictional, AI-generated case; opposing counsel raised the issue in a surreply; plaintiff admitted the error and apologized; court declined to strike the motion but issued a warning about future hallucinated citations.
Judges: Susan Prose
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Husband cited 'DeMars v. DeMars, 590 N.W.2d 116, 120-21 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)', which the court was unable to locate and flagged as an invalid/nonexistent citation, noting AI-generated hallucinations as a known source of such fake cases.
Judges:
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Dunn v. Old Orchard Ctr., Ltd., 306 Ill. App. 3d 75 (1999) for a proposition the actual case (People v. Maurice Dunn) does not support; court identified the citation as misattributed/misrepresented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Arnold v. Hoyt, 384 F. Supp. 566 (1974) and quoted language not found in the actual opinion; court notes the citation corresponds to Geldermann & Co., Inc. v. Dussault and the quoted passage is absent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court and defendant identified numerous non-existent or fictitious cases in plaintiffs' briefs (the motion alleges over twenty fake cases), including an uncited/reference-only 'Fausett v. Walgreen Co' with no supporting citation or record.
Judges:
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellants relied on Khan v. GBAK Properties, Inc. for a notice-of-default proposition the opinion does not support; the court noted the citation does not stand for the asserted proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Multiple other opinions cited in appellants' reply brief did not support the propositions for which they were offered; the court noted at least four such misstatements. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited 'Jones v. American Real Estate Services, LLC' as an opinion of this court; extensive searches found no such opinion and the court described the citation as hallucinated.
Judges: Mike Lee
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Protester cited 'Innovative Test Asset Solutions, LLC, B-419132, Dec. 16, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 398', a decision GAO could not locate and treated as non-existent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Protester misrepresented the content of several decisions in its filings; GAO noted inaccuracies and the protester later acknowledged certain citations were 'inaccurate'.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions
Judges:
AI-related case
The Court was eventually satisfied that Counsel would fix the issues.
Judges: Dennis M. Cota