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
9 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · Ohio · Aug 6, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's Opposition cited 'State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland' at 70 Ohio St.3d 40 (incorrect/misleading citation); the Court found this citation hallucinatory and noted the actual Shimola decision is at 70 Ohio St.3d 100, 637 N.E.2d 325.
Judges: Pamela Ann Barker
AI-related case
Ammann v. Markel Insurance Company
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · Ohio · Jul 16, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Ohio case 'Pilch v. Dept. of Human Servs.' as support for assignability of bad-faith claims; the Court found no such authority and concluded the citation was AI-generated.
Judges: J. Philip Calabrese
AI-related case
Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group Ltd, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · Ohio · Jul 8, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's briefing contained a citation to at least one case that may not exist; the SDNY court and this Court flagged it as potentially fabricated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff mischaracterized the holdings of cited precedents, claiming they supported propositions they do not; the Court corrected Plaintiff's representations of these cases.
Judges: Amanda M. Knapp
AI-related case
Hong Chris Lu v. Capital One, N.A., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · Ohio · Mar 25, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief (Doc. 39) contained numerous fabricated cases and troubling citation inconsistencies; opposing counsel identified the fake citations (Doc. 41); plaintiff later apologized and withdrew or corrected the filings (Doc. 47). || Fabricated: Case Law | Subsequent filing (Doc. 43) again included fake cases; court noted repeated use of fabricated citations and citation inconsistencies in the docket.
Judges: James E. Grimes, Jr
Factor in dismissing the case with prejudiceParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ Monetary Sanction; Referral to the Bar; Order to serve decision on clientParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Vision Management Group v. Constant Aviation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · Ohio · Sep 22, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel miscited Cook and referenced a non-existent page; the court identified the incorrect citation and corrected the record (noting the correct Cook citation). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited an unlocatable Sixth Circuit opinion 'Onyx Enters. Int'l Corp. v. Sloan' (843 F. App'x 859, 867 (6th Cir. 2021)); the court was unable to find the opinion and disregarded the citation.
Judges: Pamela Ann Barker
AI-related case
Nixon v. Ken Ganley Ford West
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · Ohio · Sep 3, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Court concluded at least two of Plaintiff's motions contained citations to nonexistent cases created by generative AI; Defendants reported inability to locate the cited authorities. || Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple unspecified case citations in Plaintiff's filings could not be found and were determined by the Court to be AI-generated fabrications.
Judges: J. Philip Calabrese