United States Judicial Registry
KnowJudges.com
Menu

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

Case screener

Find an AI-related case

1,395 cases found · 10 maximum per page

AI-related case

Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin Norton

CA Washington (d1) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 16, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court notes the citation is fictitious and not part of the record. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant proffered a non-existent case citation in supplemental authority; court notes it does not exist. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant quoted language claiming it appears in RCW 59.18.410; court found the quoted language is not in that statute. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited statutory language and a case name together that the court indicates do not appear to exist as cited.

Judges:

WarningAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Santos v. Warden Allenwood FCI, No. 1:17-CV-02116, 2018 WL 1178251 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2018)'; court found no such M.D. Pa. decision — the 2018 WL number corresponds to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Pettit (W.D. Wash.), unrelated to petitioner's claim. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Rodriguez v. Ebbert, No. 3:14-CV-02404, 2015 WL 1810315 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2015)'; court found 2015 WL 1810315 corresponds to an unrelated Florida appellate decision (D.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.), not the cited M.D. Pa. case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Cruz v. United States, No. 1:16-CV-01034, 2016 WL 8732312 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016)'; court found 2016 WL 8732312 corresponds to Black Water Mgmt., LLC v. Sprenkle (E.D. Va.), not the cited M.D. Pa. decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | When using this court's docket numbers, petitioner identified cases (e.g., Firestone v. Rockovich, No. 1:17-CV-2116; Fagal v. Marywood Univ.; Drake v. Warden of Allenwood Low) that exist but are irrelevant to his claim — the court treated these as misattributed and not supportive of petitioner's position.

Judges: Keli Marie Neary

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Meriland Keith Dillard v. CBS Studios, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · California · Mar 16, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Jorgensen v. CBS, Inc., 728 F.2d 958 (8th Cir. 1984),' which the Court found does not exist and misrepresents the reporter citation (728 F.2d 953 is United States v. Johns (7th Cir. 1984)). Court treated the citation as a fabricated authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Lamon v. Godbolt, 2015 WL 13647670 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015),' which the Court found to be nonexistent in the Central District and the Westlaw number refers to an unrelated state-court matter; Court treated this as a fabricated/fictitious citation. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Unauthorized supplemental brief (Dkt. 64) contained images with nonsensical spellings and text (e.g., 'Twombly/idqal + Three Bays'; 'Comedie Freeze'), which the Court identified as likely generated by AI and therefore fabricated exhibit content.

Judges: John Arnold Kronstadt

Factor in dismissing with prejudiceParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Shaquan Pridgen v. Amazon.com Services LLC

D. New Jersey · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 16, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'Lewis v. City of Trenton, 2020 WL 6204330'; the Court determined the citation does not exist, admonished the plaintiff, and warned against hallucinated citations (including those from generative AI).

Judges:

WarningAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · National federal courts · Mar 13, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'Berg v. Knox Cnty., 2024 WL 2012345, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024)'; the court could not locate any such Sixth Circuit opinion and the WL citation produced no opinion. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Brief cited a non-existent Tennessee statute section 'T.C.A. § 29-12-119'; the court could not find that section in the Tennessee Code Annotated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief repeatedly quoted '"[T]he mere fact that a plaintiff did not prevail does not mean that the claim was frivolous."' and attributed it to Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of the Treasury, but that language does not appear in Adcock-Ladd. || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed several quoted propositions to Fox v. Vice that do not appear in that opinion; the court found the quoted language absent from Fox. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cited 'Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 29 F.4th 647, 655 (6th Cir. 2022)' for a Sixth Circuit proposition, but the reporter pages cited corresponded to unrelated Tenth Circuit opinions; the Sixth Circuit Jones exists only as an unpublished opinion and was misrepresented. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Brief cited Complaint paragraph (R.3…

Judges: Jane Branstetter Stranch

Adverse Costs Order; Monetary Sanction; Potential disciplinary proceedingsParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗CSV source ↗

AI-related case

DSME Construction Co., Ltd.

ASBCA · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 13, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | December 1, 2025 surreply contained eight citations to cases that do not exist; Board accepted appellant's admission and struck the surreply. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief included one citation to a non-existent case (admitted by appellant). || Fabricated: Case Law | January 9, 2026 brief on the vitiation issue cited one fictitious case (admitted by appellant). || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Briefs included fictitious Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) citations (government identified four fictitious FAR cites). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Government identified several citations that misrepresented the holdings of existing cases (some citations appeared to misstate holdings).

Judges:

Brief struckAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.

SC Pennsylvania · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 13, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites a non-existent case, which the court determined does not exist and was likely generated by AI. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cites a reported Commonwealth v. Lyons at a reporter citation and for a proposition the court found unsupported; court found no case at that citation supporting appellant's use. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cites In re Ullman but attributes a proposition to it that the case does not stand for; court found the citation exists but was misused.

Judges:

Attribution unresolvedParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Albert Taylor v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · Nevada · Mar 13, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained citations to non-existent cases; the court described them as 'hallucinogenic' and warned that unverified AI-generated citations may lead to Rule 11 sanctions.

Judges: Andrew Patrick Gordon

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

John A. Griffiths

Arizona State Bar · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 13, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Eve.legal supplied a citation for a case that does not exist; defense counsel flagged it as an AI-generated fabricated case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Eve.legal provided a citation and a quotation attributed to a real case; the cited case did not support the proposition nor contain the quoted language.

Judges:

Reprimand and order to pay State Bar costs and expenses of $1,200.Attribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselOpen source record ↗