Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith

United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · Federal district courts · IN · 2026-05-26 · No. 1:24-cv-01365-JRS-TAB · report and recommendation

Fabricated or misquoted citationsartificial intelligence

On 2026-05-26, in William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith, the Southern District of Indiana imposed a $1,000 Rule 11 sanction for non-existent citations and denied the motion for preliminary injunction. A self-represented litigant filed a motion using quotations that did not appear in the cited source and at least 37 nonexistent or hallucinated authorities.

Disposition: The court imposed a $1,000 Rule 11 sanction for non-existent citations and denied the motion for preliminary injunction.
Recorded conduct: A self-represented litigant filed a motion using quotations that did not appear in the cited source and at least 37 nonexistent or hallucinated authorities. — outcome: sanctions; actor: litigant in person; $1,000
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.

163.] The Court further directed Plaintiff to file a statement showing why he should not be subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) sanctions for citing and quoting non-existent cases. Plaintiff responded to the Court's order onApril 9, 2026. [Filing No. 165.] Plaintiff does not dispute that certain citations were incorrect, but claims his errors were not intentionally fabricated or designed to mislead the Court. Plaintiff argues his errors fell into two categories: (1) citations he could not locate and failed to correct, and (2) quotations that paraphrased, rather than cited, authority. [Filing No. 165, at ECF p. 2.] He argues that no additional sanctions are Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration of the Court's order adopting the report and recommendation. Those motions remain pending with the district judge. [Filing Nos. 173; 176.] warranted, or alternatively, that any sanction imposed be proportionate to the conduct and limited to a formal verified citation requirement going forward. In contrast, Defendants argue significant sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff acted in either bad faith or in reckless reliance on artificial intelligence by citing fake cases or quotations on at least 37 instances throughout this litigation. [Filing No.

Authorities cited in the passage: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)

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