Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District · State appellate courts · OH · · 2026-Ohio-1930 · No. No. S-25-035 · opinion
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 affirmed the orders vacating the foreign judgment and denying relief from a $100 sanction payable to Meade.
- Recorded conduct
- The pro se appellant cited and relied on five AI-hallucinated cases, then insisted the citations existed and blamed Deepseek. The appellate court affirmed the $100 sanction in favor of Meade. — outcome: costs order; 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.
the mis-citations were merely the result of his use of the Chinese platform “Deepseek” ... In all respects, they appear to be the result of AI-generated hallucinations.
Authorities cited in the passage: He stated in his motion that Davis v. Davis
compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face