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

6 cases found · 10 maximum per page

AI-related case

Natashah Al-Ali v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · Jul 31, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Metro. Pontiac GMC, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 343, 347 (E.D. Pa. 2004)"; Court could not find such a case and noted the volume/citation actually refers to a different case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "McMahon v. RMS Electronics, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 923, 925 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)"; Court could not locate that decision and noted the cited reporter page corresponds to an unrelated case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Brown v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 211 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2000) for a proposition; Court found the case (or other cited real cases) do not stand for the asserted proposition (misattribution). || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted 9 U.S.C. § 5 inaccurately in her filings; Court identified the statutory quote as inaccurate.

Judges: Judith Ellen Levy

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Evans v. Robertson (4)

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · Jul 21, 2026

The Court found both Plaintiff's and Defendant's filings contained factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent despite prior orders requiring verification; examples include a misstatement of Mitan v. Campbell and improper uses of Delay and Everett. The Court struck the objections and related filings, reiterated prior sanctions (imposed Nov. 20, 2025), and warned that further violations may incur additional sanctions. The Court ruled that even a single factitious citation violates its orders and justifies striking filings.

Judges: Judith Ellen Levy

Briefs (both sides) struckParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗CSV source ↗

AI-related case

Boyle, et al. v. Steven Kramer

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · May 28, 2026

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted the phrase "circumstances of the occasion" and attributed it to Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974), but the phrase does not appear in that opinion; the Court flagged the quotation as factitious and likely AI-generated.

Judges: Judith Ellen Levy

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · Mar 27, 2026

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Opulent Life Church, 697 F.3d 279 in support of fines/Eighth Amendment/retaliation arguments, but the court noted that Opulent Life Church does not involve fines nor those claims and was thus misapplied. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Williams v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:18-CV-2911, 2019 WL 5485190 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2019),' which the court and R&R found does not exist in Westlaw or under that docket. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to Jensen v. Utah Cnty., 2025 WL 2208257 (D. Utah Aug. 4, 2025), but the quoted passage does not appear in that opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint referenced 'Thaxton v. City of Pontiac, No. 298862, 2011 WL 522951 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2011),' a citation the court says does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint referenced 'Smith v. State, 26 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. 2015),' which the court was unable to locate or identify as relevant.

Judges: Judith Ellen Levy

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · Jan 16, 2026

The Court refused to consider a pro se plaintiff's AI-generated "Legal Analysis Report" produced with ChatGPT-4o because it contained incorrect and factitious citations and misstatements of law; the Rule 60(b) motion was denied.

Judges: Judith Ellen Levy

Arguments ignoredParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗