Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District · State appellate courts · OH · · 2026-Ohio-1930 · order
On 2026-05-26, in Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District imposed a $100 monetary sanction for the defective legal authorities. A self-represented appellant cited Davis v. Davis, 590 N.E.2d 1372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) even though the court found the authority did not exist.
- Disposition
- The court imposed a $100 monetary sanction for the defective legal authorities.
- Recorded conduct
- A self-represented appellant cited Davis v. Davis, 590 N.E.2d 1372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) even though the court found the authority did not exist. — outcome: sanctions; actor: litigant in person; $100
- 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.
Meade postulated that the cases were “wholly fictitious.” {¶ 16} On July 10, 2025, Guo opposed Meade’s request for sanctions. He stated in his motion that Davis v. Davis—as well as the three other cases referred to by Meade—was available at the provided citation and was “readily accessible to any attorney who exercises due diligence. It is evident that Defendant’s counsel did not make a genuine effort to research these authorities and instead chose to file a frivolous Request for Sanctions without proper investigation.” {¶ 17} Guo further filed his own motion for sanctions against Meade’s counsel for “engaging in conduct designed to mislead this Court and to improperly delay enforcement of a valid foreign judgment.” {¶ 18} On July 15, 2025, the trial court entered its judgment granting Meade’s motion to vacate the foreign judgment.
Authorities cited in the passage: He stated in his motion that Davis v. Davis