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 | Defendant cited "In re SunEdison, Inc. Sec. Litig., 314 F.R.D. 139, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)"; the court could not locate the case or quoted text on docket or Westlaw and concluded the citation was an AI-generated fabrication.
Judges: Robyn F. Tarnofsky
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites a case the Court could not locate; appears to be a nonexistent citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites a case the Court could not locate; appears to be a nonexistent citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites a case the Court could not locate; appears to be a nonexistent citation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributes a specific quoted passage to Destfino that the Court could not find on the cited page. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Brief asserts a legal rule regarding Rule 81(c)(2) without citation; Court found the representation unsupported and contrary to established authority.
Judges:
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Xarelto as In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1349 (J.P.M.L. 2016); the reporter citation provided is incorrect/for a different MDL and the holding was misrepresented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Eliquis (Apixaban) as supporting denial of transfer though the Panel in Eliquis created an MDL and transferred the actions; the holding was misrepresented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re Bard IVC Filters, 2016 WL 5867451 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 5, 2016), but that citation points to a Southern District of New York decision rather than a J.P.M.L. decision; authority misrepresented/miscited. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re Vioxx, 478 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2007), but that citation leads to a Northern District of Georgia decision rather than the Panel decision cited; miscitation/misrepresentation.
Judges:
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Stanley v. University of Southern California for the proposition that service-of-process fees are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1); court found the citation does not support that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Shum v. Intel Corp. as Ninth Circuit authority that pro se litigants may recover reasonable costs; court noted Shum is a Federal Circuit case and does not say what plaintiffs claim. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Boilermaker v. Skelly decision with a 2013 WL citation; court found no such cited decision exists and that the actual Boilermaker opinion (389 F. Supp. 2d 1222) does not say what plaintiffs claimed.
Judges: Andrew Patrick Gordon
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Debtor's counsel presented quoted language purportedly from a cited case that the Court found does not appear in the opinion; a second cited case likewise did not contain the quoted language or support the proposition.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited multiple non-existent cases in the TAC which the Court concluded were hallucinated by AI and held non-existent cases cannot support his asserted legal propositions.
Judges: Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a purported Ninth Circuit case 'Mabee v. County of Orange, 784 F. App'x 585, 588 (9th Cir. 2019)'; the court found no such case and that the reporter/pincite instead corresponds to Cochran v. City of Wichita (10th Cir.). Court ordered counsel to produce the Mabee opinion or show cause.
Judges: Otis D. Wright II
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented Pace v Raisman & Assocs. as dismissing counterclaims for post-breakdown claims; court found this to be a mischaracterization of the actual holding. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Butler v Catinella involved sanctions; court found Butler does not involve sanctions and Plaintiff misstated that holding. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Feder Kaszovitz LLP v Rosen, 202 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2022]' as a non-existent (fabricated) citation repeatedly used in Plaintiff's submissions. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Bauer v Cravath, Swain & Moore, LLP, 177 AD3d 479 [1st Dept 2019]' as a fictitious case cited by Plaintiff. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Pine v AJA Delivery, Inc., 201 AD3d 640 [2d Dept 2022]' (listed in filings as Pine v AIA Delivery) as a fabricated citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified widespread misstatements of holdings (at least 83 instances) across many cited authorities, requiring judicial resources to correct.
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes the statement "A void decree is open to collateral attack at any time." to Matter of Sakow (97 NY2d 436), but the quoted language does not appear in that case; court identified this as a false quotation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cites "Kruger v. Kruger, 107 AD3d 1285, 1287 [3d Dept. 2013]", a case that does not exist; the reporter citation corresponds to Matter of Blocker v. Fischer, 107 AD3d 1285. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found that numerous additional citations in Plaintiff's affirmation were fabricated or misrepresented by GenAI, pointing to different cases, irrelevant cases, or no case at all.
Judges: Christi J. Acker
AI-related case
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | AI-generated quoted commentary attributed to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1 did not appear in the cited commentary; the court could not locate similar language in any authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed a quotation to United States v. Washington ('simply facilitating the offense without exercising decision-making authority is insufficient') that does not appear in that opinion; the court noted Washington in fact upheld the enhancement. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed a quotation to United States v. Anthony ('[t]here was no evidence [the defendant] directed or supervised anyone else') that does not appear in the opinion; the court explained Anthony's vacatur was narrow and the defendant had conceded supervisory role.
Judges: Whitney Downs Hermandorfer