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 asserted the plaintiff's opposition contained "fake case law;" the court noted the allegation but did not identify specific fabricated cases or analyze them.
Judges: Andrew Patrick Gordon
AI-related case
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Brief referenced several nonexistent witnesses generated by ChatGPT; the court determined these witnesses did not exist. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Brief attributed fabricated testimony/quotations to at least one real witness that were generated by ChatGPT (false quotes).
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited nonexistent cases in its opposition to Defendant's first attorneys' fees motion; Defendant incurred fees addressing those fabricated authorities and sought reimbursement.
Judges: Beth Labson Freeman
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the sentence "The filing of an answer … effected a waiver of the right to demur." to Adorh (Adohr) Milk Farms, Inc. v. Love (255 Cal.App.2d 366), but the court could not find that language in that opinion or any reported case and noted the quotation may be AI-generated.
Judges:
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Two sections of the Joint Claim Construction Brief contained a concluding statement proposing an incorrect claim construction generated by AI; counsel missed a one-page section when editing. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | A third section of the brief contained pervasive AI-generated errors and was withdrawn; counsel used the AI to pull deposition statements and integrate extrinsic evidence, producing inaccuracies.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted briefing containing non-existent quotations and misstated case law (apparently derived from AI/third-party summaries); the Court noted Kaiser pointed out the incorrect quotations and warned against AI-generated hallucinated caselaw.
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to two different cases in his motion for sanctions, but the quoted language does not appear in either cited opinion; court found these misquotations indicative of AI-generated hallucinations.
Judges:
AI-related case
False Quotes: Case Law | Application attributes quoted language to Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. 488, though that language does not appear there; the language appears in Horne v. Wells Fargo, 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Court identified this as an AI-style hallucination.
Judges: Michelle Williams Court
AI-related case
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited In re Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co., 6 F.3d 1184, 1188 (7th Cir. 1993) for a 'de novo' standard, but the case actually supports abuse-of-discretion review for permissive abstention (misstated precedent). || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant included a quotation attributed to In re Tarnow that does not appear in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant apparently quoted or attributed propositions to In re Aguirre and In re Boughton that do not appear in those cases, per appellee and the court.
Judges: Manish Suresh Shah
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified Walker v. Pierce as a non-existent citation included in Mitchell's brief. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified Crenshaw v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Resources as a non-existent citation included in Mitchell's brief. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co. was cited but is unrelated to the issues presented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Stamps v. Nelson was cited but is unrelated to the issues presented.
Judges: