Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Marriage of Nash
Colorado Court of Appeals · State appellate courts · CO · · No. 25CA0978 · opinion
The Colorado Court of Appeals on 2026-05-07 affirmed the $1,665 attorney-fee sanction and awarded appellate fees and costs after noting nonexistent authorities in Marriage of Nash. The self-represented father filed a motion with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.
- Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed in part and affirmed in part, and appellate fees and costs were awarded with the amount to be determined on remand.
- Recorded conduct
- The pro se father, a licensed Georgia attorney, cited cases that did not exist, did not say what he claimed, or were irrelevant. The court awarded appellate fees and costs but did not fix a new amount in this document. — outcome: costs order; 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.
¶ 29 Given this context, combined with the history of the case, we concur with the district court’s conclusion that father’s motions “lacked substantial justification” and appeared to be part of a vexatious “pattern of behavior where [father] asks for reconsideration of any decision he does not agree with, despite legal precedent. ” We therefore affirm the district court’s April 14, 2025, award of attorney fees against father in the amount of $1,665. 3 Although there is perhaps another explanation for father’s citations of nonexistent cases, we observe that they bear many of the hallmarks of “hallucinations” that are a well-publicized problem associated with generative artificial intelligence large language models. See, e. g. , Al-Hamim v.
compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face