Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Brown v. State of Mississippi
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · State appellate courts · MS · · 2026 WL 670733 · No. NO. 2024-KA-00489-COA · opinion
Court of Appeals of Mississippi on 2026-03-10 in Brown v. State of Mississippi found counsel's reply brief contained three citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority. The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings.
- Disposition
- The court warned counsel to verify legal authorities before future filings.
- Recorded conduct
- Counsel's reply brief contained three citation defects involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations, mischaracterized authority. — outcome: warning; 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.
3 Brown does not assert that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-1 (Rev. 2020). 4 In the State's appellate brief, the State asserts that regarding this issue, Brown cites three cases that do not exist and five others that his brief misattributes false facts, analyses, quotations, and holdings to otherwise genuine citations. Brown also cites seven cases for quotations that do not appear in those opinions. In the reply brief, Brown's counsel acknowledged these errors, which included “phantom cases” and incorrect citations. 5 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Authorities cited in the passage: s brief cited three cases that do not exist ( · Miranda v. Arizona
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face