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.

1,395Cases
837Judge-case associations
551Judges
164Courts

Case screener

Find an AI-related case

3 cases found · 10 maximum per page

AI-related case

James F. v. Commissioner of Social Security

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · Jul 13, 2026

The court found Attorney Erin Rich submitted briefings that contained false or embellished factual statements drawn from medical records (e.g., misstating a speech-therapy note, misdating primary-care records, and asserting “numerous seizures” when the record showed a single generalized seizure). Rich admitted reliance on prior work product and that her firm occasionally uses AI to summarize records, but could not identify a specific tool. The court held the falsities violated Rule 11, found the conduct willful within the firm’s chain of command, and imposed non-monetary sanctions (CLE courses including ethics/AI topics and an order to review pending motions) to deter repetition.

Judges: Patricia T. Morris

CLEParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Patrick C. Shaltry, I v. Brent Benzing, et al.

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the sentence "A conviction is not final until the completion of the direct appeal." to People v. Swafford; the Court found the quote does not appear in the opinion and noted cited passages contradict the proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the sentence "A judgment is not final while an appeal of right remains pending." to People v. Kennedy; the Court found the quote does not appear in the opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "People v. Smith, 489 Mich. 292, 311 (2011)" for the proposition "A conviction pending on direct appeal is not a final adjudication." The Court was unable to locate the cited case and treated the citation as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Savin v. City of Cleveland, 2022 WL 3715087 (6th Cir. 2022)"; the Court found the Westlaw citation pointed to an unrelated brief and could not locate a case by that name, indicating a likely mis-citation or fabrication.

Judges: Patricia T. Morris

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Zlatkin v. Gladwin County, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · Feb 20, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wells v. UPS Airlines, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 1234567 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2022)'; the Court determined no such decision exists and noted a different similarly titled decision does not support plaintiff's recusal argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'ABC Corp. v. XYZ Inc., 123 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2019)'; the Court found that citation to be nonexistent and not a valid binding authority.

Judges: Patricia T. Morris, Thomas Lamson Ludington

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗