Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · Federal district courts · OK · 2026-03-19 · No. CIV-21-312-GLJ · opinion

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-03-19, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied the plaintiff’s sanctions motion but imposed a $500 sanction for citing fictitious or inaccurate authorities generated through AI research. A self-represented party submitted a motion with two false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including Hill v. Oklahoma and Wadsworth v. Walmart.

Disposition: The court sanctioned Brownfield $500 payable to the defendant school district and warned future Rule 11 violations would likely draw harsher sanctions.
Recorded conduct: Brownfield's sanctions motion contained multiple citations that did not exist or did not support the cited propositions, and he admitted using AI for legal citations in that filing. — outcome: costs order; actor: litigant in person; $500
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.

AI in legal representation has increased, so have incidences of fictitious or inaccurate citations resulting from such AI tools. Presentation of inaccurate authorities in pleadings resulting from AI subject to the signing party to sanctions. See, e.g., Hill v. Oklahoma, 2025 WL 1840659, at *4 (W.D. Okla. July 3, 2025) (“[C]ourts have increasingly found the imposition of sanctions proper in response to an attorney's conduct in citing ‘fake cases’ that are ‘hallucinations’ generated by an artificial intelligence platform.”) (citing Wadsworth v. Walmart, 348 F.R.D. 489, 495-496 (D. Wyo. 2025) (citing fake cases in a signed motion violated Rule 11(b)(2) and subjected attorneys to imposition of monetary sanctions); Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations, Inc., 2025 WL 662398 at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2025) (imposing sanctions where the attorney filed two separate motions that cited two cases that could not be located “on any legal research tool . . . .”); Ramirez v. Humala, 2025 WL 1384161 at * 1 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2025) (collecting cases finding “the submission of nonexistent case citations in filings to the court to constitute sanctionable conduct” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)). Plaintiff admits he

Authorities cited in the passage: Hill v. Oklahoma, 2025 WL 1840659 · Ramirez v. Humala, 2025 WL 1384161 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)

Court document: govinfo.gov
Public copy first read: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-08 · court's own copy read
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Official copy located 2026-09-08 via govinfo; quoted passage confirmed in the official document. 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