Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

T-Alexander v. Baass

Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District · State appellate courts · CA · 2026-04-14 · 2026 WL 1004593 · No. H052046; Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 23CV01552 · opinion

Fabricated or misquoted citationscourt does not name AI

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.

Disposition: The order declaring T-Alexander a vexatious litigant and imposing a prefiling order was affirmed, with a caution about fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations.
Recorded conduct: T-Alexander’s pro se opening brief included quotations attributed to Tennessee v. Lane and People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) that did not appear in the cited cases, and his reply brief contained numerous similar fabricated quotations; he had also acknowledged inaccurate citations in trial-court briefing. — 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.

4th 737, 750, for the following quotation: “a judge may not act on personal knowledge of facts not presented in evidence or conduct an independent investigation of facts not in evidence. ” However, no such quotation appears in that case, or in any other case this court was able to locate. In addition to the other such instance in his opening brief identified above, T-Alexander's reply brief contains numerous similar fabricated quotations. The record also shows that T-Alexander acknowledged having included inaccurate citations in briefing in the trial court. We caution appellant that such conduct violates the California Rules of Court and Code of Civil Procedure, notwithstandingthefactthatheisunrepresented. (See,e.

Authorities cited in the passage: Tennessee v. Lane that do not appear in that opinion · Appellant cited People v. Superior Court

Court document: courts.ca.gov
Public copy first read: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-08 · court's own copy read
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Official copy located 2026-09-08 at www.courts.ca.gov; quoted passage confirmed. Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

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