Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3)

United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma · Federal district courts · OK · 2026-02-24 · No. 25-CV-00297-SEH-SH · memorandum opinion

Fabricated or misquoted citations

Northern District of Oklahoma on 2026-02-24 in Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3) found the self-represented party's brief contained three citation defects, including Inc. v. Carmen Feliciando and Badillo v. Thorpe, involving nonexistent authorities, fabricated or misattributed quotations. The court ordered the self-represented party to pay $405 for the defective authorities.

Disposition: The court struck the petition, objection, and other pending motions for persistent inaccurate and nonexistent citations, while allowing an amended petition.
Recorded conduct: Jackson’s objection, petition, and motions continued a pattern of nonexistent, misleading, or misquoted authorities after warnings and a prior sanctions order. — outcome: filing struck; actor: litigant in person
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.

579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016) (recognizing a district court’s inherent power to manage its docket); Moore v. City of Del City, No. 25-6002, 2025 WL 3471341, at *3 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025) (recognizing the same in the context of an attorney who submitted briefs that contained hallucinated or fake case citations as a result of using generative AI technology). The Court’s inherent authority is not without limits, and the exercise of these powers “must be a ‘reasonable response to the problems and needs’ confronting the court’s fair administration of justice,” and such exercise “cannot be contrary to any express grant of or limitation on the district court's power contained in a rule or statute.” Dietz, 579 U.S. at 45. Just as Judge Huntsman did, federal courts 5

Authorities cited in the passage: Badillo v. Thorpe, 158 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Conn. 2001) · Inc. v. Carmen Feliciando de Melecio · Badillo v. Thorpe decision is at 158 F. App'x 208 · Moore v. City of Del City, No. 25-6002, 2025 WL 3471341

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: Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

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