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

4 cases found · 10 maximum per page

AI-related case

Steven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade Alao

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · Oregon · Apr 10, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case; the court found Hernandez v. Cnty. of Yamhill (2017) does not exist and treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case; the court found U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Taylor (2015) does not exist and treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case; the court found Johns v. County of Douglas (2013) does not exist and treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case; the court found McNeil v. United States (2015) does not exist and treated it as an AI-generated fabricated citation.

Judges: Michael H. Simon

Party using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Troy Allen Berg v. Mandi Marie Wondra

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · Oregon · Dec 12, 2025

Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Petitioner relied on a Ninth Circuit decision that was subsequently vacated by the Supreme Court. || False Quotes: Case Law | Petitioner attributed a non-existent passage to Monasky (footnote 3) and quoted language not in the opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner cited Cuellar v. Joyce for the proposition regarding the mature-child defense though that case does not discuss the defense. || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Petitioner cited Blondin for a quoted principle it does not contain and which the Court noted has been effectively abrogated by later Supreme Court authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited a British case that does not exist; Court's exhaustive search found no such authority.

Judges: Michael H. Simon

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Stephen R. Peacock & Green Globe Limited

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · Oregon · Oct 27, 2025

Lawyer later explained that he had "used Microsoft’s Copilot for its editing functions in an effort to review and improve the draft document by fixing grammar, spelling, and improving badly phrased sentences" - not for legal research.On November 12, 2025, the court resolved the Show Cause proceedings without formal sanctions.

Judges: Michael H. Simon

Show Cause OrderParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗CSV source ↗

AI-related case

Schoene v. Oregon Department of Human Services

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · Oregon · Jun 25, 2025

"Before addressing the merits of Schoene’s motion, the Court notes that Schoene cited several cases in her reply brief to support her motion to amend, including Butler v. Oregon, 218 Or. App. 114 (2008), Curry v. Actavis, Inc., 2017 LEXIS 139126 (D. Or. Aug. 30, 2017), Estate of Riddell v. City of Portland, 194 Or. App. 227 (2004), Hampton v. City of Oregon City, 251 Or. App. 206 (2012), and State v. Burris, 107 Or. App. 542 (1991). These cases, however, do not exist. Schoene’s false citations appear to be hallmarks of an artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool, such as ChatGPT. It is now well known that AI tools “hallucinate” fake cases. See Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024) (noting, in February 2024, that the issue of fictitious cases being submitted to courts had gained “national attention”).6 In addition, the Court notes that a basic internet search seeking guidance on whether it is advisable to use AI tools to conduct legal research or draft legal briefs will explain that any legal authorities or legal analysis generated by AI needs to be verified. The Court cautions Schoene that she must verify the accuracy of any future citations she may include in briefing…

Judges: Michael H. Simon

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗