Burnside v. Verdick, et al.

What the court wrote

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

Genuine Parts Co. , 463 F. Supp. 2d 928, 934 (E. D. Wis. 2006). These erroneous citations suggest that artificial intelligence was used to draft the complaint, producing the phenomenon known as “hallucinations,” i. e. , fabricated cases that do not exist. Unfortunately, this has become an unwelcome fixture in court filings across the country. The Court recognizes that artificial intelligence has the potential to expand access to the courts, but it also presents very serious dangers that are “fundamentally incompatible with our justice system” predicated on “integrity and honesty from parties. ” Mills v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:25- cv-1219-MTS, 2025 WL 3470293, at *1 (E. D.

Authorities cited in the passage: Mills v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:25- cv-1219-MTS, 2025 WL 3470293, at *1 (E · Plaintiffs cited 'Jones v. County of Los Angeles, 802 Fed. App’x 282 (9th Cir. 2020)' · Plaintiffs cited 'Thompson v. Hong, 2020 IL App (2d) 190551' · Fay v. Fifty K Corporation, No. 2-19-0551, 2020 WL 2095845 (Ill. App. Ct. Apr. 29, 2020) (alt. 2020 IL App ( · Plaintiffs cited 'Wallace v. County of Los Angeles, 479 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2020)' · Curtis v. Oliver, 479 F. Supp. 3d 1039, 1088 (D.N.M. 2020) instead, indicating mismatch/nonexisten · Plaintiffs cited 'Estate of Smith v. Shulz, 2018 WL 2192187 (N.D. Iowa)' · Cabrera v. N.Y. Fresh Meat Inc., 2018 WL 2192187 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2018), not a N.D. Iowa decision · Plaintiffs cited 'Yates v. Mansfield, 2014 WL 11535036 (S.D. Iowa)' · Plaintiffs cited 'Doe v. United States, 463 F. Supp. 2d 934 (N.D. Iowa 2006)'