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
Guerra-Quezada v. United States; Guerra-Vasquez v. United States (consolidated)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · National federal courts · Aug 14, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Briefs quote Ng Fung Ho for the sentence '[N]o deportable alien may be expelled until it has first been determined . . . that he is in fact an alien,' but the court's research could not locate that quote in Ng Fung Ho or any opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Briefs attribute the phrase '[i]t is wrong to deport a United States citizen' to Ng Fung Ho though that phrase does not appear in the opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Doe v. McAleenan as a Fourth Circuit opinion, but the decision is actually a Seventh Circuit opinion and begins on a different page of the Federal Reporter. || False Quotes: Case Law | A quotation the briefs attribute to Afroyim v. Rusk actually originates from a dissent in Perez v. Brownell (Warren, C.J., dissenting).
Judges: Leslie Southwick
AI-related case
Davis v. Gopal, Didyuk, and Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals
Shelby County Circuit Court, Tenn. · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 14, 2026
Plaintiff's motion alleges that defense counsel filed motions to dismiss containing nonexistent Tennessee statutes, nonexistent statutory subdivisions, fabricated quotations, invented legal standards, incorrect reporter citations, and facts attributed to the wrong cases. The motion identifies alleged AI-generated or copied errors involving Martin, Stevens, J.A.C., Roberts, Lawson, Foster, Bray, and other authorities. The requested relief was an order requiring the identified attorneys and firms to explain their conduct under oath and attend a hearing under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.03(1)(b); the motion expressly reserved any sanctions decision.
Judges:
Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.Attribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Brankle v. Schmell
Indiana Court of Appeals · Indiana · Aug 14, 2026
The trial court found that Brankle's filings contained repeated citations to rules that do not exist and fictitious cases, stating he appeared to be using ChatGPT to prepare filings. The trial court denied his motion to compel and ordered him to pay Schmell's expenses; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the motion was not substantially justified because it was riddled with hallucinated authorities and that as a pro se litigant he is held to the same standards as trained attorneys.
Judges: Cale J. Bradford
AI-related case
Daryl Harris v. Christopher A. Wray
S.D. Indiana · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 14, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Walsh v. Kreiger as 'No. 19-cv-1764, 2020 WL 6325983, at 2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 28, 2020)'; the Court found the docket number linked to a different case and the Westlaw citation led nowhere, indicating an incorrect/misrepresented citation. || Misrepresented: Other | Editor's Note and Court observation that the complaint contains multiple unverified citations likely generated by AI; links to those citations are unavailable in the record.
Judges:
AI-related case
Rivard v. Vermont Dept. of Corrections
SC Vermont · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 14, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited multiple non-existent Vermont opinions (court could not identify any case matching the citations). || Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted a specific cited authority did not exist at the cited location and could not be verified. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff purported to quote from submitted exhibits and court records but the quoted language does not appear in the referenced documents (misquoted exhibits). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff provided Vermont Reports citations that correspond to different opinions than those named; court unable to identify matching opinions.
Judges:
AI-related case
Boettcher v. Boettcher
CA Arizona · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 14, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant included a purported quotation in his filing that does not appear in the cited cases; the appellate court found the quotation apparently false and struck it.
Judges:
False quote struck from recordAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
JMOR Properties v. Artist Alley Townhomes et al.
CA Florida (4d) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 12, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited a non-existent opinion allegedly from this Court; court identified it as fabricated authority and noted it does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petition relied on existing cases as if they supported the proposition that this Court repeatedly grants certiorari to review orders vacating clerk's defaults, but cited authorities did not support that proposition.
Judges:
AI-related case
Garry Chapman v. City of Priceville, et al.
N.D. Alabama · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 12, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quoted formulation not found in the opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quoted formulation not found in the opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quoted formulation about independent decisionmakers not contained in the cited opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quoted formulation about 'similarly situated' language not present as quoted. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quoted characterization of appellate review of agency proceedings not found in the cited opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quoted admonition regarding judges with an interest not appearing as quoted in the cited case. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quoted requirement that an official municipal policy be the 'moving force' to the cited Supreme Court decision in a way the court found unsupported. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Mt. Healthy for the proposition that allegations of direct evidence of motive suffice at the pleading stage; court found the citation did not support the claimed proposition as presented. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Asserted a scope of municipal contract immunity and cited an…
Judges:
Public reprimand; Order to NoticeAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
IN RE: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation
D. Arizona · Jurisdiction not recorded · Aug 12, 2026
Defendants raised in reply that Dr. El‑Ghannam used ChatGPT and that his case‑specific report contained hallucinated (fabricated) citations, citing a different MDL filing where hallucinated sources were confirmed. The Court found the AI argument untimely, noted Bard had not identified any fully hallucinated citations in the General Report, and observed El‑Ghannam admitted limited ChatGPT use but testified he wrote and verified the report. The Court refused to exclude opinions on that basis and imposed no sanction.
Judges:
