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
Case screener
AI-related case
Plaintiff (pro se) admitted he miscited a case in his Amended Complaint. Defendants reasonably alleged the citation may have been fabricated. The Court found the defendants' contention reasonable given the plaintiff's admission, but declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions, concluding there was no violation and that other alleged defects did not warrant sanctions.
Judges: Kenneth John Gonzales
AI-related case
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Gonzales v. Qwest Commc’ns, 2005 WL 366290 (D. Colo.)' using a database identifier that does not appear attached to an existing case. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted 'Responses to objections are required unless the court orders otherwise' as from Gonzales, but the court found that language does not appear in the Tenth Circuit decision.
Judges: Sarah Morgan Davenport
AI-related case
First order to Show Cause is here.
Judges: Jerry H. Ritter, Jr
AI-related case
Sanction confirmed later (here) with costs decided in March 2026.
Judges: Steven C. Yarbrough
AI-related case
The court noted prior fabricated citations in plaintiff's earlier briefing (for which counsel had already been sanctioned). In the current filing the court found no fabricated citations but identified inaccurate legal contentions—e.g., a rule statement claiming withholding ready-to-produce material while seeking extra time is sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)—which the court found unsupported and incorrect. The court suspected plaintiff used AI again, but simply removed the citations. The court admonished counsel to review AI-generated work and comply with Rule 11 but did not impose additional sanctions here.
Judges: Jennifer M. Rozzoni
AI-related case
AI UsePlaintiff, acting without counsel, submitted briefing that included multiple fabricated or erroneous judicial citations, likely generated by an AI tool used for research or drafting. While the tool itself is not named, the nature and clustering of errors mirror known AI output patterns.Hallucination DetailsCited cases included wholly nonexistent opinions (e.g., "Las Cruces Sun-News v. City of Las Cruces") and real case names with incorrect volume/reporting details (e.g., misattributed circuits or invented page numbers). The citations lacked verifiable authority and were flagged by the court as spurious upon review.Ruling/SanctionThe court dismissed several claims on substantive grounds but issued a sharp warning about the misuse of AI-generated legal citations. While no immediate sanctions were imposed, the judge explicitly referenced Mata v. Avianca and held this instance to be only the second federal case addressing AI hallucinations in pleadings. The plaintiff was cautioned that any recurrence would result in Rule 11 sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice.Key Judicial ReasoningThe opinion stressed that access to courts is not a license to submit fictitious legal ma…
Judges: William Paul Johnson