AI-related case
Rose v. Arts Bonita, Inc.
Earlier Warning is here.
Judges:
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
Meni-Silga v. State Farm
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a purported California Supreme Court decision involving Pacific Gas & Electric allegedly from 1996; later acknowledged to be nonexistent and AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a nonexistent 2021 case brought by the government to argue that an expert cannot be a back channel for inadmissible hearsay; acknowledged as AI hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an imagined 2014 case involving State Farm to support the insurer's limited liability for home damage; later admitted not to exist and to be AI-generated.
Judges:
AI-related case
Nicholas Evan Nesbitt v. Trans Union, LLC, et al.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found at least two of Plaintiff's motions contained citations to nonexistent case law; Plaintiff admitted reliance on AI for legal research. || Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple pleadings and motions filed rapidly contained fabricated caselaw and misrepresentations of federal rules, as identified by the Court.
Judges:
AI-related case
Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga v. A’s Contractor, Inc., et al.
Defense counsel (State Farm) admitted that use of the AI tool Irys produced multiple non-existent case citations across its motions in limine and that some quotations were not attributable to the cited authorities. Opposing counsel discovered the issues, informed the court, and defense counsel investigated, identified seven fabricated case citations and several misattributed/false quotes, apologized, and filed redlined corrections. No sanctions or penalties are recorded in the declaration.
Judges:
AI-related case
Courtney Voyton v. Joseph Voyton, et al.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff cited 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522 and described it as governing a government lawyer's professional responsibility, but the court found the statute actually concerns notice of intent to sue and that the plaintiff misrepresented the law. || Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Plaintiff's objections advanced legal doctrines (Younger abstention, Rooker-Feldman, quasi-judicial immunity) not discussed in the R&R—the court concluded these were 'ghost arguments' steered by generative AI and misleading.
Judges:
AI-related case
Eyong v. 72 Barrow St. Realty Corp.
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening and reply briefs contained fabricated (fictitious) citations to legal authority; large portions were previously struck by the court for containing these fictitious citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Briefs included inaccurate summaries/misstatements of the holdings of real cases (misrepresentations of precedent) noted by the court.
Judges: Glenn T. Harrell Jr.
AI-related case
In re Marriage of Katelyn Jill Tate
Misrepresented: Case Law | Father's pro se appellate brief, allegedly drafted with AI, contained general citations to existing cases that did not support his propositions; Mother characterized this as fabricated precedent.
Judges: Joshua C. Morrison
AI-related case
Anish Sam Mathew v. Parv Verma
Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted risk of AI-generated 'phantom' or fabricated citations in filings and referenced a prior E.D. Mich. decision (Ali v. IT People Corp.) where a pro se litigant was sanctioned for such misrepresentations; court warned such fabricated citations will be sanctionable.
Judges: Anthony P. Patti
AI-related case
WRI Summit REIT LP v. Kuerschner
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant quoted Burton as containing language about 'manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons,' which the court found does not appear in Burton. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a de novo review statement re § 12-350 to Bennett that the cited paragraph does not contain. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited Brown for a due-process rule ('Rulings which prevent a party from presenting evidence strike at the heart of due process') though Brown is a 1998 appellate decision and does not contain that language. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case the court could not locate (appears non-existent in Arizona appellate reports). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant asserted Takieh reversed a fee sanction for failure to make explicit findings under § 12-350; court found Takieh did not contain that language and in fact affirmed the sanction. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant represented Hertz as a published, citable opinion when it is an unpublished memorandum decision and cannot be cited for persuasive value. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Starr Pass with incorrect…
Judges: Brian Y. Furuya, D. Andrew Gaona, Jennifer M. Perkins
AI-related case
Stephen J. Palumbo and Lori A. Palumbo v. Gregory M. Palumbo
Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent quoted language he attributed to Kuroda v. SPJS Holdings that the court found does not appear in that decision; court described the fabricated quotation as a hallmark of AI usage and used it as evidence of bad faith. || Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent attributed a Rule 12(e) procedural principle to Koninklijke v. Philips that the court found the cited case does not support; the court treated the miscitation as another indicium of fabricated authority.
Judges: David Hume, IV