Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Kings Roofing v. Fusion Works

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Sixth District · State appellate courts · FL · 2026-05-22 · 2026 WL 969721 · No. 6D2025-1251 · order

Fabricated or misquoted citationsGAI

On 2026-05-22, in Kings Roofing v. Fusion Works, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Sixth District ordered the filer to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the defective authorities. Counsel filed an initial brief using quotations that did not appear in the cited source, several nonexistent or hallucinated authorities, and authorities used for propositions they did not support.

Disposition: The court ordered the filer to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the defective authorities.
Recorded conduct: Counsel filed an initial brief using quotations that did not appear in the cited source, several nonexistent or hallucinated authorities, and authorities used for propositions they did not support. — outcome: pending; actor: lawyer
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.

McCommon, Esquire, who, in his Initial Brief, has provided this Court with citations to several cases, some of which appear to be fabricated. The Initial Brief looks as if it was drafted with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence without Mr. McCommon having put sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the existence or accuracy of the cases cited therein. This is unfortunately not the first time our Court has encountered a filing with citations to cases that do not exist or to cases that are cited for inaccurate legal propositions. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, No. 6D2025-3086, 2026 WL 969721 (Fla. 6th DCA Apr. 10, 2026). As we did in Rodriguez, we hereby direct Mr. McCommon to provide copies of each and every case cited in the Initial Brief that actually exists, with highlighted quotations or language that support the assertions made in the Initial Brief. These cases shall be filed with this Court within ten days of the issuance of this Order. Additionally, Mr.

Authorities cited in the passage: Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, No. 6D2025-3086, 2026 WL 969721 (Fla. 6th DCA Apr. 10, 2026)

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public mirror; official copy pendingprovisional
Found via: charlotin-cc0
Notes: Read from the Charlotin CC0 public mirror of the court-authored document; official copy is pending.

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