Skip to content

Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Anthony Jama Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

California Court of Appeal, Third District · State appellate courts · CA · · 2026 WL 521913 · No. C100087 · opinion

California Court of Appeal on 2026-02-25 in Anthony Jama Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County found the self-represented party's appellate brief contained three citation defects, including Sacramento v. Superior Court, involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority. The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.

Disposition
The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities before future filings.
Recorded conduct
The self-represented party's appellate brief contained three citation defects, including Sacramento v. Superior Court, involving nonexistent authorities, mischaracterized authority. — outcome: warning; actor: litigant in person
Canonical record
Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

We admonish appellant for fabricating legal authorities or failing to review citations created by generative artificial intelligence that tend to “ ‘hallucinate’ ” legal authority. (Noland v. Land of the Free L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 443-444 [detailing the increased usage of generative artificial intelligence and its tendency to hallucinate fake cases].) “Pro[pria] per[sona] litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.”

Authorities cited in the passage: County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 305 · s proposition. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited · People v. Ramirez · County of Sacramento v. Superior Court

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub