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
4 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Teresa Jewel Whitten v. Kristopher Brian Everitt
Kentucky Court of Appeals · Kentucky · Jul 10, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found the appellant's citation to this case and the quoted proposition are not supported by the decision she cited (mischaracterization of Rankin). || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found this citation does not appear to exist after an exhaustive search and labeled it a hallucinated AI-generated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found this citation does not appear to exist after an exhaustive search and labeled it a hallucinated AI-generated citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court determined the appellant mischaracterized the holdings of this existing case; the opinion does not support the proposition she attributed to it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted the appellant provided an incorrect Westlaw citation for this unpublished opinion and that the opinion does not support the claimed proposition.
Judges: Annette C. Karem
AI-related case
A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Kentucky Court of Appeals · Kentucky · May 22, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited non-existent case law (court described some cited authorities as 'non-existent'). || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant quoted language purportedly from Burke v. Sexton, but the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.
Judges: Susanne M. Cetrulo
AI-related case
Pamela Blair v. Sanctuary Bluff Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.
Kentucky Court of Appeals · Kentucky · Mar 20, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's appellate briefs contained nine hallucinated citations and persistent misquoting/misinterpretation of precedent; appellant admitted using AI and submitting an incorrect draft; Court struck the brief and required refiling with an AI-free certification. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited a misattributed case for the proposition that a recorded lien could not accrue additional charges — the reporter citation given belonged to an unrelated Texas case, and the actual Kentucky Pinnacle decision deals with lien priority, not 'continuing liens.' The Court identified the mismatch and rejected the citation's use.
Judges: Susanne M. Cetrulo
AI-related case
Crowder v. Yussman
Kentucky Court of Appeals · Kentucky · Oct 24, 2025
" Moreover, we take this opportunity to caution practitioners of this Commonwealth on the submission of briefs or citations without confirming their accuracy and the correctness of the resulting analysis. The abject failure to conduct due diligence when making arguments to the Court greatly impacts the profession and undermines confidence in the skills and knowledge necessary to practice as an attorney. Failure to verify substantive legal citations prior to submission to this Court is not only in derogation of the RAP, but also violates the attorney's ethical responsibilities. See Supreme Court Rule 3.130(1.1).Mistakes occur. Oversights happen. Those types of inadvertent errors we could absolve. However, purposelessly submitting a brief to a Court of law without confirming that the cited case law even exists is an affront to the dignity of the Court system, the legal profession as a whole, the judiciary, the client, and the public at large."
Judges: Audra Jean Eckerle, Susanne M. Cetrulo
