Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense

United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · Federal district courts · NC · 2026-03-02 · No. 2:25-CV-00041-M · order

Fabricated or misquoted citationscourt does not name AI

Eastern District of North Carolina on 2026-03-02 in Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al. found counsel's motion contained seven citation defects involving fabricated or misattributed quotations, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court admonished counsel to verify cited authorities and avoid repeating the citation defects.

Disposition: The court ordered Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned.
Recorded conduct: AUSA Renfer's response brief contained fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings in opposition to Fivehouse's administrative-record motion. — 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.

v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 129, 130 (4th Cir. 1990). 4. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation from 32 C.F.R. § 199.21(d) in Defendants’ response opposing Fivehouse’s motion for a preliminary injunction (D.E. 39). 5. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation from 32 C.F.R. § 199.21(d) in Defendants’ response opposing Fivehouse’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 90). 2 Case 2:25-cv-00041-M-RN Document 119 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 4 6. Making false or misleading statements regarding how and why the fabricated quotations and misstatements appeared in D.E. 86. If established, such conduct may implicate North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). If a violation is established, the court may impose any sanction authorized by Rule 11, its

Authorities cited in the passage: n v. Sullivan in Defendants · D.E.86 attributing holdings to Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co · LLC v. National Marine Fisheries Service · D.E.86 attributing holdings to Sierra Club v. United States Dept. of the Interior · Rule 11 · 32 C.F.R. § 199.21(d)

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

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