AI Abuse Court Cases
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
1,395Cases
837Judge-case associations
551Judges
164Courts
1,395 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Pamela Blair v. Sanctuary Bluff Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.
Kentucky Court of Appeals · Kentucky · Mar 20, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's appellate briefs contained nine hallucinated citations and persistent misquoting/misinterpretation of precedent; appellant admitted using AI and submitting an incorrect draft; Court struck the brief and required refiling with an AI-free certification. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited a misattributed case for the proposition that a recorded lien could not accrue additional charges — the reporter citation given belonged to an unrelated Texas case, and the actual Kentucky Pinnacle decision deals with lien priority, not 'continuing liens.' The Court identified the mismatch and rejected the citation's use.
Judges: Susanne M. Cetrulo
AI-related case
Hessert v. Hessert & Wieland-Pulayya
CA Florida (6d) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 20, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined five of the cases cited in the petition do not exist and appear to be fabricated; petitioner ordered to provide copies of all cited cases that exist and to show cause. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court determined four of the cited cases exist but were cited for legal propositions those cases do not actually represent (misrepresented precedent); court warned about reliance on AI and required cite-checking.
Judges:
AI-related case
Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · Louisiana · Mar 20, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Second of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court noted unusual bullet-point formatting and counsel's failure to read the cited cases. || Fabricated: Case Law | Third of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; Court concluded counsel relied on ChatGPT and did not verify the authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | One of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found it was likely generated by ChatGPT and not checked by counsel. || Fabricated: Case Law | Fourth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was fabricated; the Court treated it as an AI-generated hallucination that went unchecked. || Fabricated: Case Law | Fifth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; counsel admitted using ChatGPT and failing to confirm the citations' validity. || Fabricated: Case Law | Sixth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court emphasized attorneys must read and verify every case they cite. || Fabricated: Case Law | Seventh of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found objective Rule 11 violation…
Judges: Carl J. Barbier
Monetary sanction & formal admonishmentParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ Appellant's brief stricken; appellant's appeal dismissed; Bar referral; SuspensionParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ Brief Struck; Adverse Costs Order; Case dismissed with prejudiceParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Prisbrey v. Prisbrey
Utah Court of Appeals · Utah · Mar 19, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief included multiple incorrect or nonexistent Utah case citations; the court found four of six cited authorities incorrect and said some citations "appear to be made out of whole cloth." || Misrepresented: Case Law | Argument section contained several incorrect citations (wrong case names, unrelated authority, incorrect paragraph cites); only one of seven citations in that section was correct according to the court.
Judges: David N. Mortensen
AI-related case
Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas
CA California (d1) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 19, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed quotations to real cases that do not contain those quotations; court found the quotes fabricated and not present in the cited authorities. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Respondent referenced hearings and factual events not reflected in the record (appear to be fabricated submissions/record entries).
Judges:
AI-related case
Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County
LUBA (Oregon) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 19, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Bartholomew's reply brief included a fabricated case citation that persisted after the county identified invalid authorities. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Bartholomew cited existing cases and statutes that do exist but do not support the propositions for which they were cited (mischaracterized authorities).
Judges:
AI-related case
Oscar Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · Oklahoma · Mar 19, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants identified eight cited cases in Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion as non-existent (AI-generated fictitious cases); Court found submission of fictitious cases violated Rule 11. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Several other cited authorities did not stand for the legal propositions cited or did not contain the quoted language, i.e., misrepresented/inaccurate case authority generated by AI.
Judges: Gerald L. Jackson
