Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
City of Shaker Heights v. Thompson Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County · State appellate courts · OH · 2026-05-21 · 2026-Ohio-1871 · No. No. 115785 · opinion
On 2026-05-21, in City of Shaker Heights v. Andre D. Thompson, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District overruled the assignment of error after finding the cited plea-record authority nonexistent or unrelated. A self-represented appellant cited State v. Banks even though the court found the authority did not exist.
Disposition The court affirmed the denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw plea and did not impose a consequence for the fabricated authorities. Recorded conduct The pro se appellant cited State v. Banks and State v. Stuart using citations corresponding to other cases and relied on other fabricated or hallucinated cases. The court declined to address unsupported arguments and affirmed. — outcome: noted, no consequence; actor: litigant in person Canonical record Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rulesWhat the court wrote Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
Appellant relies on fabrications (or very possibly hallucinated cases generated by AI services) for his argument.
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 Read from the copy held by Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0) of the court-authored document Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: Ohio Reporter of Decisions host timed out while checking robots and official PDF pattern; official document was not fetched (checked www.supremecourt.ohio.gov). Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). 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 team method as of 2026-09-08 v0.2.2 coding CC BY 4.0 JSON
← Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho Hunter-Bey v. City of Cleveland Law Department → Disclaimer · Last checked 2026-09-07
SafeLegalAI is a research publication, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation.
Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by SafeLegalAI. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice. Full disclaimer → · Something wrong? Report it →
Hugging Face