Skip to content

Courts on AI / monthly digest

What courts said about AI in April 2026

98 court-authored documents filed this month that substantively discuss generative AI. Fabricated or misquoted citations 98.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub

← March 2026 · May 2026 →

  1. K.C. v. D.R.

    · Texas Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Texas Court of Appeals on 2026-04-30 affirmed the family-violence protective order after disregarding unsupported arguments based on false quotations and nonexistent cases in K.C. v. D.R. The self-represented party filed a submission with three fabricated case citations, one false case quotation, and two mischaracterized case citations.

  2. Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 2026-04-30 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services. The self-represented plaintiff filed an opposition with one fabricated case citation, one false case quotation, and one mischaracterized case citation, including McIvor v. Credit Control Servs.

  3. Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of New York on 2026-04-30 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions. The self-represented party filed a pleading with one fabricated case citation, three false case quotations, and two mischaracterized case citations, including Inc. v. Neewra.

  4. Mercy Wellington v. City of New York

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of New York on 2026-04-30 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Mercy Wellington v. City of New York. The self-represented party filed an opposition with one fabricated case citation.

  5. Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al.

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of New York on 2026-04-30 ordered counsel to pay $1,500 for filing unverified or fabricated authorities in Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al. Counsel filed a submission with two fabricated case citations, including In re Marcus, 491 F.2d 56, 60 (2nd Cir. 1974).

  6. Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al

    · Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio on 2026-04-30 awarded $5,237 against the filing party for expenses caused by fabricated or misrepresented authorities in Ascent Management, Inc. et al v. Shell Oil Company et al. Counsel filed a submission with one fabricated case citation and three mischaracterized case citations, including Perrico v. Verizon.

  7. Eagle Township v. Shaun VanAlstine

    · Michigan Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Michigan Court of Appeals on 2026-04-30 affirmed summary disposition for the township and noted the appellant’s cited Michigan Supreme Court case was hallucinated in Eagle Township v. Shaun VanAlstine. The self-represented party filed a submission with one fabricated case citation.

  8. Darrin L. Johnson, Jr. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Maryland · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Maryland on 2026-04-30 ordered the self-represented party to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities in Darrin L. Johnson, Jr. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al. The self-represented party filed a pleading with one fabricated case citation.

  9. Faisal Rahman v. Michael J. Burton, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Northern District of Illinois on 2026-04-30 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Faisal Rahman v. Michael J. Burton, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed an opposition with two fabricated case citations.

  10. Burnside v. Verdick, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of Iowa on 2026-04-30 ordered the self-represented party to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities in Burnside v. Verdick, et al. The self-represented party filed a pleading with six fabricated case citations, including Jones v. County of Los Angeles.

  11. Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of New York on 2026-04-29 fined counsel $2,500 and ordered counsel to notify the client about the AI-related citation errors in Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty v. Thomas Fogarty et al. Counsel filed a brief with seven fabricated case citations.

  12. Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

    · United States District Court for the District of Maryland · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Maryland on 2026-04-29 granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion in part, denied plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion, and refused to rely on a fabricated case in Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners. Counsel filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation.

  13. Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez

    · Appellate Court of Maryland · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Appellate Court of Maryland on 2026-04-29 struck the portions of the appellant’s brief that relied on three nonexistent nunc pro tunc cases in Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez. Counsel filed a brief with three fabricated case citations.

  14. Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith

    · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The United States District Court for the District of Kansas on 2026-04-29 warned counsel to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith. Counsel filed a brief with one false case quotation.

  15. Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Carissa Ann Gericke

    · Iowa Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Iowa Court of Appeals on 2026-04-29 deemed issues waived where the appellant relied on nonexistent or irrelevant authorities instead of valid supporting law in Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Carissa Ann Gericke. The self-represented appellant filed a brief with two fabricated case citations and one mischaracterized case citation.

  16. In re W.B.

    · California Court of Appeal, Fifth District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The California Court of Appeal, Fifth District on 2026-04-29 warned the self-represented mother to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in In re W.B. The self-represented mother filed an opening brief with one fabricated case citation.

  17. In the Matter of Ikechukwu H. Okorie

    · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Fifth Circuit on 2026-04-29 affirmed the bankruptcy orders denying motions to void property sales and rejected arguments supported by nonexistent or inapposite authority in In the Matter of Ikechukwu H. Okorie. The self-represented party filed a submission with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.

  18. Bathsheba Nichole Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Arizona on 2026-04-29 struck the defective motion and warned the self-represented plaintiff that future fabricated citations may result in sanctions in Bathsheba Nichole Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a pleading with two fabricated case citations, including Ellsworth v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n.

  19. Pate v. CMG Mortgage, Inc., et al.

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of Tennessee on 2026-04-28 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Pate v. CMG Mortgage, Inc., et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a submission with two fabricated case citations.

  20. Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Middle District of North Carolina on 2026-04-28 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a submission with nine fabricated case citations.

  21. Loyer v. Wayne County Michigan et al.

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of Michigan on 2026-04-28 ordered counsel to attend an ethics seminar and file proof of attendance after finding AI-supplied bogus case law in Loyer v. Wayne County Michigan et al. Counsel filed a brief with one fabricated case citation, one false case quotation, and one mischaracterized case citation.

  22. Louis L. Ligon III v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Northern District of California on 2026-04-28 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Louis L. Ligon III v. Meta Platforms, Inc. The self-represented plaintiff filed a reply brief with one mischaracterized case citation.

  23. Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc.

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Northern District of California on 2026-04-28 admonished counsel, fined counsel $1,001, required four hours of live CLE, and ordered circulation of the sanction order in Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. Counsel filed a submission with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.

  24. Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al.

    · United States District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Central District of California on 2026-04-28 fined counsel $2,500 and required reporting the sanction order to other courts where counsel had appeared in Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc. et al. Counsel filed a submission with three fabricated case citations, including In re Shubert, 799 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015).

  25. Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Northern District of Alabama on 2026-04-28 admonished counsel for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct in Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections. Counsel filed a submission with one false case quotation, including Thomas v. Dillard.

  26. Moore v. Wireless CCTV LLC

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of Texas on 2026-04-27 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Moore v. Wireless CCTV LLC. The self-represented party filed a pleading with two fabricated case citations, including Thomas v. City of San Marcos.

  27. Marble v. O'Malley

    · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Middle District of Pennsylvania on 2026-04-27 admonished the self-represented plaintiff for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct. The self-represented plaintiff filed a brief with one fabricated case citation, one fabricated or AI-like submission item, and one invented legal doctrine, including TRO brief attributes a holding to Manuel v. City of Joliet that it….

  28. In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi

    · Supreme Court of the State of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The New York Supreme Court on 2026-04-27 granted the motion to dismiss the election petition and noted that sanctions were unavailable because the respondent did not request them in In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi. The self-represented party filed a submission with one fabricated case citation.

  29. Rhonda L. H.-B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of New York on 2026-04-27 allowed refiling but warned the self-represented plaintiff after AI-like placeholders and repeated nonsensical text appeared in Rhonda L. H.-B. v. Commissioner of Social Security. The self-represented plaintiff filed an opposition with two fabricated or AI-like submission items.

  30. Ali Behroz Aziz, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Maryland · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Maryland on 2026-04-27 imposed page limits and warned the self-represented plaintiffs after identifying a nonexistent forfeiture case citation in Ali Behroz Aziz, et al. v. United States of America, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a motion with one fabricated case citation, including United States v. $17,900 in U.S. Currency.

  31. Keefe v. BMakin Film Ltd

    · Supreme Court of the State of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The New York Supreme Court on 2026-04-24 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Keefe v. BMakin Film Ltd. The self-represented party filed a motion with one fabricated case citation, two false case quotations, and one mischaracterized case citation, including Klapper v. Graziano.

  32. United States v. Jose Marquez

    · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Fifth Circuit on 2026-04-24 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in United States v. Jose Marquez. The self-represented plaintiff filed a brief with one fabricated case citation, one false case quotation, and one mischaracterized case citation.

  33. Ryan-Michael Jarvis v. County of Teton Wyoming

    · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Tenth Circuit on 2026-04-24 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Ryan-Michael Jarvis v. County of Teton Wyoming. The self-represented party filed a pleading with one false case quotation and one mischaracterized case citation, including Spinelli v. United States that does not appear in the opinion.

  34. Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart

    · Supreme Court of Alabama · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Supreme Court of Alabama on 2026-04-24 doubled appellate costs, awarded $17,200, prohibited further filings without counsel, and referred counsel to the Alabama State Bar in Laurie Ibach and Mark Stewart v. Bruce Stewart. Counsel filed a submission with five fabricated case citations and three false case quotations, including Quoted Janowiak v. Tiesi as supporting a proposition.

  35. Joann Crawford v. Buffalo Creek Properties, LLC

    · Texas Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Texas Court of Appeals on 2026-04-23 affirmed the judgment for Buffalo Creek after finding no reversible error and noting unsupported or nonexistent authorities in the brief in Joann Crawford v. Buffalo Creek Properties, LLC. The self-represented party filed a brief with two fabricated case citations and one invented legal doctrine, including Hercenberger v. Proctor' without a reporter citation.

  36. IN RE PAULA M. MILLER, Relator

    · Texas Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Texas Court of Appeals on 2026-04-23 warned counsel to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in IN RE PAULA M. MILLER, Relator. Counsel filed a submission with one fabricated case citation and one false case quotation.

  37. Fatima Meziane v. Abdelouahab Aitouche

    · Appellate Court of Maryland · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Appellate Court of Maryland on 2026-04-23 affirmed the custody judgment, assessed costs to the appellant, and exercised discretion not to strike a brief with fictitious citations in Fatima Meziane v. Abdelouahab Aitouche. The self-represented appellant filed a brief with two fabricated case citations, including Hurd v. Hurd.

  38. Philip D. Dennison v. June Caudill et al.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of Indiana on 2026-04-23 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Philip D. Dennison v. June Caudill et al. The self-represented party filed a pleading with one fabricated case citation, including Coleman v. Hudson.

  39. O.K., LLC v. Melka

    · California Court of Appeal, Second District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The California Court of Appeal, Second District on 2026-04-23 affirmed the judgment, awarded appellate costs to O.K., and rejected record-augmentation arguments tied to alleged fabricated citations in O.K., LLC v. Melka. The self-represented party filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.

  40. Gunter v. Contango ORE, Inc., et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Alaska · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Alaska on 2026-04-23 admonished the self-represented party for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct. The self-represented party filed a submission with three mischaracterized case citations, one fabricated legal rule, and one fabricated or AI-like submission item, including Jimerson v. Tetlin Native Corp. as holding that transactions affecting ANCSA l.

  41. Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Daniel Vett Finlayson; Michelle Johnson

    · United States District Court for the District of Utah · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Utah on 2026-04-22 warned counsel to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Daniel Vett Finlayson; Michelle Johnson. Counsel filed an opposition with one fabricated case citation and one false case quotation.

  42. Meyer v. Castroville State Bank

    · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth District on 2026-04-22 affirmed the summary judgment for the bank and declined to initiate sanctions proceedings over two non-existent cases in Meyer v. Castroville State Bank. The self-represented party filed a submission with two fabricated case citations.

  43. Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl

    · Oregon Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Oregon Court of Appeals on 2026-04-22 struck the brief, awarded $8,044 in costs, and allowed appellant to file a replacement brief by a fixed deadline in Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl. Counsel filed an opening brief with one fabricated case citation, one false case quotation, and three mischaracterized case citations, including Tubra v. Cooke.

  44. Yanling Zhang v. Yanhui Zhang

    · Supreme Court of Nevada · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Supreme Court of Nevada on 2026-04-22 fined counsel $250, referred counsel to the State Bar, and denied leave to file a corrected opening brief in Yanling Zhang v. Yanhui Zhang. Counsel filed an opening brief with two fabricated case citations and two mischaracterized case citations, including City of Henderson v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council.

  45. Alishia Monique Jones v. Ahmed Taylor, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of Michigan on 2026-04-22 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Alishia Monique Jones v. Ahmed Taylor, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a submission with two fabricated case citations, including Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana.

  46. In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig

    · California Court of Appeal, Sixth District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The California Court of Appeal, Sixth District on 2026-04-22 affirmed the status-only judgment and postjudgment orders and ordered the parties to bear their own appellate costs in In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig. The self-represented appellant filed a brief with nine fabricated case citations.

  47. Krista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of California on 2026-04-22 fined counsel $1,000 and referred counsel to the State Bar after finding false quotations in the remand papers in Krista C. Geddes v. LoanCare, LLC, et al. Counsel filed a submission with two false case quotations.

  48. Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.

    · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Arizona on 2026-04-22 granted Circle K’s motion to dismiss in part, denied it in part, and identified a nonexistent Navient citation in the complaint in Daniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a motion with one fabricated case citation, including LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman.

  49. In re: María V. Irizarry Centeno; Anissa M. Bonilla Irizarry

    · Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico on 2026-04-21 admonished counsel for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct in In re: María V. Irizarry Centeno; Anissa M. Bonilla Irizarry. Counsel filed a submission with six fabricated case citations, including Otero-Burgos v. Inter Med. Supplies.

  50. Jurkowski v. Berkowitz

    · Superior Court of the District of Columbia · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Superior Court of the District of Columbia on 2026-04-21 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Jurkowski v. Berkowitz. The self-represented plaintiff filed a pleading with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.

  51. Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway Group

    · Washington Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Washington Court of Appeals on 2026-04-20 admonished the self-represented party for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct in Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. The self-represented party filed a brief with one fabricated case citation and one false case quotation.

  52. Bridgett Watson Adams, et al. v. 3M Company

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Northern District of Alabama on 2026-04-20 ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities. Counsel filed an opposition with two fabricated case citations, three false case quotations, and three mischaracterized case citations, including Jarrod Johnson v. Water Light & Sinking Fund Comm’n.

  53. In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al.

    · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on 2026-04-18 received the firm’s corrective letter identifying AI hallucinations, accepted corrected citations, and noted the apology in In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al. Counsel filed a motion with two fabricated case citations, one false case quotation, and one mischaracterized case citation.

  54. Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc.

    · United States District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Central District of California on 2026-04-17 warned counsel to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Robert Harris v. Elementis Specialties, Inc. Counsel filed a motion with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.

  55. Laud Essandoh v. Capital One Bank NA

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of Texas on 2026-04-16 admonished the self-represented plaintiff about inaccuracies in a joint discovery report caused by generative-AI reliance. The order required future disclosures identifying any generative-AI use and certifications that the filer reviewed AI work product for accuracy and relevance.

  56. Jamie Lee Saunders v. Albertsons/Safeway, LLC

    · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Colorado on 2026-04-16 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Jamie Lee Saunders v. Albertsons/Safeway, LLC. The self-represented party filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation.

  57. Fofanah v. Rockwall Rental Properties

    · Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District on 2026-04-15 affirmed summary judgment for Rockwall Rental Properties after appellants relied on unsupported and hallucinated case citations in Fofanah v. Rockwall Rental Properties. The self-represented appellant filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and two mischaracterized case citations, including Khan v. GBAK Properties.

  58. Nelson v. Derry

    · Minnesota Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals on 2026-04-15 affirmed the district court’s order and noted that the husband cited an unlocatable DeMars decision resembling an AI hallucination in Nelson v. Derry. The self-represented party filed a brief with one fabricated case citation, including DeMars v. DeMars.

  59. Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken

    · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District on 2026-04-15 struck the defective brief after finding Centient AI links, false quotations, and numerous nonexistent authorities. The self-represented plaintiff filed an opening brief with one fabricated case citation and two mischaracterized case citations, including Dunn v. Old Orchard Ctr.

  60. Matter of: LOGMET LLC, B-423066.2

    · Government Accountability Office · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Government Accountability Office on 2026-04-15 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Matter of: LOGMET LLC, B-423066.2. The self-represented party filed a submission with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.

  61. Brian Smith v. TD Auto Finance LLC, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Northern District of Mississippi on 2026-04-14 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Brian Smith v. TD Auto Finance LLC, et al. The self-represented party filed a motion with one fabricated case citation.

  62. Cynthia White v. Walmart, Inc.

    · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Southern District of Indiana on 2026-04-14 warned counsel to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Cynthia White v. Walmart, Inc. Counsel filed a submission with one fabricated or AI-like submission item and one misstated record or submission point.

  63. Michael T-Alexander v. Michelle Baass et al.

    · California Court of Appeal, Sixth District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The California Court of Appeal, Sixth District on 2026-04-14 admonished the self-represented appellant for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct. The self-represented appellant filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and two false case quotations, including Tennessee v. Lane that do not appear in that opinion.

  64. Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.

    · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Eastern District of California on 2026-04-14 ordered the self-represented plaintiff to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities in Shaw v. City of Portola, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and five mischaracterized case citations, including People v. Dang.

  65. State of Ohio v. Abdullah M. Alqahtani

    · Ohio Court of Appeals, Third District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Ohio Court of Appeals, Third District on 2026-04-13 affirmed the traffic conviction, assessed appellate costs, and noted that some of the appellant’s cited cases did not seem to exist in State of Ohio v. Abdullah M. Alqahtani. The self-represented appellant filed a submission with one fabricated case citation, one mischaracterized case citation, and one misstated legal rule.

  66. Allen v. Hunt

    · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Northern District of Illinois on 2026-04-13 warned the self-represented plaintiff to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Allen v. Hunt. The self-represented plaintiff filed a brief with two fabricated case citations, including LLC v. Sotera Health Co.

  67. Steven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade Alao

    · United States District Court for the District of Oregon · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The District of Oregon on 2026-04-10 granted the motions to dismiss, denied the motions to strike, allowed amendment, and warned that AI-generated legal authorities must be verified in Steven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade Alao. The self-represented plaintiff filed a brief with four fabricated case citations, including Hernandez v. Cnty. of Yamhill.

  68. Bruno Roberto Rodriguez v. Kathryn Louise Rodriguez

    · Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    The Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District on 2026-04-10 ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities in Bruno Roberto Rodriguez v. Kathryn Louise Rodriguez. Counsel filed a brief with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.

  69. In re Troylond Malon Wise

    · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-09, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck counsel’s objection and supplemental response, imposed a $2,750 sanction, ordered AI-focused CLE, and barred further filings until compliance. Counsel submitted a filing with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including In re Garcia and In re Buttermilk Towne LLC.

  70. Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (1)

    · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-09, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck the motion and imposed a $4,999 sanction for repeated AI-generated fake cases, quotations, and statements of law and fact. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with 13 false quotations and fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Marshall v. Marshall and Andrade v. Arby Concessions.

  71. Robert S. Hulvat v. Juli Gumina, STG Divorce Law, and Jennifer B. Hulvat

    · Illinois Appellate Court, Third District · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-09, Illinois Appellate Court, Third District denied dismissal and striking of the appellate brief but awarded appellees $3,178 in attorney fees for responding to the AI-produced brief. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with multiple false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including In re Marriage of Lehr.

  72. Joseph C. Zoghaib v. Societe Generale De Banque Au Liban, et al.

    · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-08, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recommended staying discovery and mediation pending two motions to dismiss. A self-represented party submitted a response brief with The response brief cited FSIA discovery authorities, including In re Clerici, for propositions those authorities did not support.

  73. James C. Young; Tahnee R. Young v. Happy Money

    · U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-08, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order limiting one debtor’s advocacy for the other and noted that several cited bankruptcy cases did not exist or support the argument. A self-represented party submitted a motion with fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including In re Cherrett and In re Pringle.

  74. Pleasant v. Burns

    · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-08, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed the case without prejudice after the plaintiff ignored orders to address Rule 11 concerns about nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with at least one false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities.

  75. Nancy Parkinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

    · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-07, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the unemployment board and declined to consider the claimant’s recoupment argument because it relied on a nonexistent case and a misplaced statute. A self-represented party submitted a petition with fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Beck v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.

  76. Blackburn v. United States

    · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-07, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the motion in limine and warned that the plaintiff’s mischaracterized treating-physician authorities implicated Rule 11. A self-represented party submitted a motion with false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including Hall v. United States and Poppino v. Berryhill, an unrelated decision.

  77. Sims v. Souily-Lefave (1)

    · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-07, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied the discovery motions and warned the plaintiff that unchecked AI-generated or unsupported citations could expose her to Rule 11 sanctions. A self-represented party submitted a motion with The motion cited fabricated or mischaracterized discovery cases, including Cruz and DuPont authorities, for propositions the cases did not support.

  78. Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.

    · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-07, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declined to sanction counsel after a corrected brief was filed, but warned all parties to verify the existence and accuracy of cited authorities. Counsel submitted an opposition brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities.

  79. Kelly Bartholomew v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon

    · Oregon Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-06, Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed the judicial-review petition after the petitioner failed to explain fabricated AI-sourced citations in her opening brief and show-cause response. A self-represented party submitted a petition with 10 fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Ass’n v. Washington County, 309 Or App 112, 124-25, 482 P3d 827.

  80. Viral Bhagat v. Anuja Sharad Shah

    · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-06, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York admonished the self-represented defendant to verify that cited cases exist and support the propositions asserted in future AI-assisted filings. A self-represented party submitted a motion with false quotations and fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including In re SunEdison, Inc. Sec. Litig.

  81. Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual Tillery

    · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-06, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted default judgment in part, denied paralegal costs, and warned the plaintiffs that fake AI-drafted cases may lead to sanctions. A self-represented party submitted a motion with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities.

  82. Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (2)

    · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-06, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan struck the motion to consolidate and gave the plaintiff a final warning after he repeated fake quotations following an earlier AI-citation sanction order. A self-represented party submitted a motion with false quotations, including Berndt v. Tennessee does not appear in and United States v. Frazier does not appear in.

  83. In re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation (Gravelyn)

    · U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-06, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation the Panel transferred the listed action to MDL No. 3014 and warned that unverified AI-generated fictional citations undermine truthful court filings. Counsel submitted a filing with mischaracterized authorities, including In re Xarelto and In re Bard IVC Filters.

  84. Gamez v. County of Fresno

    · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-06, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not issue for an opposition brief with nonexistent authority, fabricated quotations, and unsupported legal assertions. Counsel submitted an opposition brief with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities.

  85. James Jordan v. USA, Clinicas Del Camino Real, Inc., et al.

    · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-06, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and admonished the plaintiff for false quotations and an apparently fake Ninth Circuit citation. A self-represented party submitted a filing with several false quotations and fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Co. v. Monsanto Co.

  86. Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLC

    · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-03, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the arbitration-related relief and warned the plaintiff that further fictitious legal authority could produce an order to show cause for sanctions. A self-represented party submitted a motion with fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities.

  87. Kleyman Law Group, P.C. v. James Kaloidis

    · Supreme Court of the State of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-03, Supreme Court of the State of New York held the plaintiff’s papers sanctionable as frivolous because they were riddled with fictitious cases and authorities that did not support the propositions asserted. Counsel submitted a filing with fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including Matter of Winston & Strawn LLP and Matter of Witham v Witham.

  88. Ellen Michaelis v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society

    · Supreme Court of the State of New York · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-03, Supreme Court of the State of New York denied the renewed post-judgment request and enforced its generative-AI certification rule after finding hallucinated citations throughout the self-represented filing. A self-represented party submitted a motion with false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including Matter of Sakow and Kruger v. Kruger, 107 AD3d 1285, 1287.

  89. In re: Kathleen A Rabon

    · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-03, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut denied the debtor’s contract arguments and ordered counsel to show cause separately under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 for apparently false citations. Counsel submitted a motion with 7 false quotations. The response requirement preceded any sanction decision.

  90. Najafpir v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-03, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the ECOA claim with prejudice and prohibited the plaintiff from using artificial intelligence to assert legal arguments in future filings. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with multiple fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities.

  91. Modern Floor Specialists, Inc. et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.

    · U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-03, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the city defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered counsel to file a declaration or show cause regarding the potentially hallucinated Mabee citation. Counsel submitted a filing with fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Mabee v. County of Orange and Cochran v. City of Wichita.

  92. United States v. Farris

    · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-03, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disqualified counsel, denied compensation for time served, locked the briefs, directed notice of the opinion, and referred counsel for discipline. Counsel submitted a brief with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, false quotations and fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including United States v. Washington and United States v. Anthony.

  93. Stanford v. Leinart

    · Texas Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-02, Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, denied costs, and admonished the self-represented appellant that the fabricated Anderson v. Hood authority was unacceptable. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Anderson v. Hood.

  94. Kevin D. Turnage v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al.

    · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-02, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the plaintiff’s pending motions and warned that further false citations, including AI hallucinations, may warrant sanctions. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including Gao v. United States and Miller v. United States.

  95. In the Interest of W.G., Minor Child

    · Iowa Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-01, Iowa Court of Appeals struck the fabricated-citation portions of the petition on appeal, declined to dismiss the appeal, and considered only arguments untainted by the false authorities. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities.

  96. Joseph Maldonado v. Professional Animal Retirement Center

    · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-01, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana imposed a $1,500 sanction on counsel and directed the clerk to send the sanction orders to the Rhode Island disciplinary authority. Counsel submitted a brief with mischaracterized authorities, including Animals v. NIH and FEC v. Akins.

  97. Saqib Kafeel v. Apple Inc., et al.

    · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-01, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the preliminary-injunction motion and warned that future filings containing nonexistent cases may be stricken from the docket. A self-represented party submitted a motion with fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including In re Grand Jury Subpoena.

  98. Patrick Hrdlichka v. Samantha Bengston

    · Arkansas Court of Appeals · Fabricated or misquoted citations

    On 2026-04-01, Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the self-represented appellant’s brief was noncompliant and relied on fictitious authorities that prevented meaningful review. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with multiple fabricated or nonexistent authorities. The court resolved the merits while identifying the defective legal research.