AI-related case
Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.
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