Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

In re Marriage of Haddock

District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma · State trial courts · OK · 2026-05-21 · No. FD-2021-987 · order

Fabricated or misquoted citations Competence, fees and billingcourt does not name AI

On 2026-05-21, in In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock, the Tulsa County district court sanctioned counsel $2,000, ordered attorney-fee proceedings, required a knowledge-base audit, and directed bar referral. Counsel filed a motion using authorities used for propositions they did not support.

Disposition: The court sustained the motion for sanctions and fees, ordered counsel to pay $2,000 into the court fund, set fees for later determination, and stated it would contact the Oklahoma Bar Association.
Recorded conduct: Husband’s counsel, Mr. Johnson, filed a motion containing three citations to nonexistent law and three citations inaccurately describing case propositions. The court imposed a $2,000 court-fund sanction and contacted the Oklahoma Bar Association. — outcome: regulatory referral; actor: lawyer; $2,000
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.

Husband's Motion containedthree citations to nonexistent lawand three citations to cases with inaccurate descriptions ofthe propositions oflawfor which they stood. The errant citations were pointed out to Mr. Johnson on August 25, 2025, at which point the parties agreed to pass that day's setting. This Court was not the assigned Judge at that time and has no direct knowledge of anything other than what is reflected in the minutes. Mr. Johnson sought leave to file acorrectedpleading andthenfiled acorrectedMotion toDismiss. The Court never had a chance to grant leave to file, but it was filed anyway. The Court finds that the mere filing of the corrected Motion does not moot the issue from the Court's perspective. b. The Court does not render a finding that, based upon the affidavit filedby Mr. Johnson and executed byhis paralegal, that there have been similar cases filed.

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 published online as of 2026-09-08 (checked Tulsa County/OSCN public docket, storage.courtlistener.com). 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 teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub