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
7 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMS
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · Missouri · Jul 10, 2026
The court determined Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order was apparently drafted using generative AI and contained bracketed placeholders and a fabricated case citation ("Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 F.3d 513, 520 (9th Cir. 2013)"). The court noted this raised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 concerns but, for judicial efficiency, addressed the motion on the merits, denied the TRO, and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). No professional sanctions or monetary penalties were imposed related to the fabricated citation.
Judges: Stephen Nathaniel Limbaugh Jr.
Order to provide certification with every future filingParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Jaii LeShawn Quinones v. Unknown Love, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · Missouri · Mar 31, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 628 F.2d 346" for the proposition that arbitrary passport restrictions are unconstitutional; the Court found the reporter cite fabricated and the asserted holding incorrect (real case is Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001), which does not say that). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Missouri ex rel. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 817 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)" and the Court found that citation does not exist as cited and does not support Plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Robinson v. Missouri Child Support Agency, 2021 WL 5437824 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)" but the Court concluded the citation does not exist or does not support the asserted proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed to Haig v. Agee the proposition that "government-imposed passport restrictions must be justified by compelling evidence;" the Court explained Plaintiff's characterization is the opposite of the case's actual holding.
Judges: Sarah Elizabeth Pitlyk
Case dismissed with prejudice as a Rule 11 sanctionParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · Missouri · Nov 17, 2025
From the Order to Show Cause (available here): "One week after filing its second motion for summary judgment, Liberty Mutual submitted a notice of errata identifying the erroneous Goodman and Chaudri citations and demonstrating legitimate citations to those cases. [ECF No. 50].3 While the Court acknowledges Liberty Mutual’s prompt notice disclosing the two most serious errors in its filing, the additional misquotations and mischaracterizations discussed above will not be disregarded. Liberty Mutual indicates that the errors were typographical and/or caused by vision impairment, but that explanation is simply not credible. The errors in Liberty Mutual’s filing are not ones in which a few letters or numbers were passed over or shuffled. Rather, the filing includes entire names, dates, court designations, and Westlaw citations that are completely off base, and various other inaccuracies cannot be explained by typographical or vision issues. Therefore, the Court will reserve its ruling on the motion for sanctions and will set a hearing requiring Liberty Mutual to show cause why it should not be sanctioned."Later on, the court accepted Counsel's technical audit that suggested the error…
Judges: John Andrew Ross
AI-related case
Megan Cowden v. US Treasury & IRS
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · Missouri · Oct 20, 2025
The court was unable to locate one of the plaintiff's case citations and several quotations attributed to other cases; the court suspected portions of the filings were AI-generated and noted potential Rule 11 violations but did not impose sanctions.
Judges: Zachary Maxwell Bluestone
AI-related case
Serafin v. United States Department of State, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · Missouri · Oct 16, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Escobar v. INS, 935 F.2d 955 (8th Cir. 1991)'; the Court found the citation non-existent/miscited (935 F.2d 955 corresponds to a different case, United States v. Lee). || Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants noted the cited case 'Lazo v. Blinken, No. 7:21-cv-00313, 2022 WL 1316223 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2022)' does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants noted the cited case 'Flores-Torres v. DHS, 548 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2008)' does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on 'Flores-Villar v. United States, 564 U.S. 210 (2011)' as supporting a derivative-parental-citizenship proposition; the Court stated the citation is an unexplained affirmance and does not support Plaintiffs' asserted rule. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs invoked 'Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2001)' to support a derivative-children theory; the Court explained Hughes did not concern derivative citizenship and was inapposite.
Judges: Henry Edward Autrey
