Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Philip D. Dennison v. June Caudill et al.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · Federal district courts · IN · · No. 2:26-cv-00255-JRO-MKK · order
The Southern District of Indiana on 2026-04-23 warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Philip D. Dennison v. June Caudill et al. The self-represented party filed a pleading with one fabricated case citation, including Coleman v. Hudson.
- Disposition
- The court warned the self-represented party to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented party filed a pleading with one fabricated case citation, including Coleman v. Hudson. — 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.
However, Dennison is accordingly warned of the possibility of sanctions if any future filings violate Rule 11(b). The Court notes that when Dennison filed his complaint, he did not know which judge would preside over the matter. However, this Court entered a supplemental notice to pro se litigants regarding the use of artificial intelligence on April 13, 2026. Dkt. 8. This notice and the Practices and Procedures of this <pageID> Court require all litigants to tell the Court if they used artificial intelligence (“AI”) to help write their complaint, a motion, or any other documents they file into the case. If Dennison uses AI to write a document, he must include a signed statement at the end of the document that says: This document was generated with the assistance of [identify AI tool name].
Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Plaintiff cited 'Coleman v. Hudson, 682 F3d 775 (7th Cir. 2012)'