Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · Federal district courts · FL · 2026-05-14 · No. 6:24-cv-01224-LHP · order

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-05-14, in Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC, the Middle District of Florida ordered the filer to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the defective authorities. A self-represented litigant filed a response using record or transcript quotations not found in the record, quotations that did not appear in.

Disposition: Summary judgment was granted and the court stated it would issue a separate order to show cause to plaintiff’s counsel regarding possible AI misuse.
Recorded conduct: Plaintiff’s counsel’s response repeatedly cited facts and legal theories that did not exist in the record and raised concerns that the response was the product of impermissible use of artificial intelligence. The court stated it would issue a separate show-cause order. — 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.

...-51- normal excusable mistakes or carelessness, repeatedly cites to facts and legal theories that do not exist on this record, and appears to rise to the level of a potential violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, as well as raises concerns that the response may be a product of the impermissible use of Artificial Intelligence programs. The Court will be issuing a separate order to show cause to Plaintiff’s counsel to address this concern. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 14, 2026. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record -52-

Authorities cited in the passage: Plaintiff cites to Nadler v. Harvey, No. 06-12692, 2007 WL 2404705, at *9 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2007) · Court is at a loss as to why Plaintiff cites to Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U · Title VII. 16 Plaintiff cites to Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge Inc., 117 F · See Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F

Court document: storage.courtlistener.com
Public copy first read: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-08 · court's own copy read
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Read from the copy held by Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0) of the court-authored document Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy located 2026-09-08 via courtlistener-recap; quoted passage confirmed in the official document.

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