Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Richmond v. City of Newport

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three · State appellate courts · WA · 2026-03-17 · 2026 WL 746700 · No. 40954-6-III · opinion

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-03-17, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III affirmed dismissal and warned self-represented appellants that cases cited for convenient propositions must be real and supportive. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with false quotations, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 and Osborn v. Mason County.

Disposition: The court affirmed summary dismissal and cautioned the pro se litigants to ensure cited authorities are accurate.
Recorded conduct: The Richmonds cited Osborn for a proposition not in the case and cited King County v. Vincent, Carlyle, and Johnson cases the court could not locate. — outcome: warning; 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.

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Richmonds do not argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their intentional infliction of emotional distress or their Consumer Protection Act claims. The Richmonds likely used AI for their briefing. AI is notorious for fabricating opinions and/or quotes. Here, the Richmonds cited an actual opinion, Osborn, for a proposition that would be convenient for them but which does not appear in the case. This pattern repeats with other cases cited by the Richmonds. AI fabrications occur by prompting a generative AI for a specific holding, and AI fabricating a result. This explains other cases cited by the Richmonds—King County v. Vincent, 167 Wn.2d 671 (2009), Carlyle v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 155 Wn. App. 895, 231 P.3d 218 (2010), and State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019)—none of which this court could locate. We expect all parties, including pro se litigants, to ensure that the cases cited be real cases that plausibly support the proposition for which they are cited.

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: Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: No matching official/primary PDF located; courts.wa.gov did not resolve and CourtListener storage guesses did not match (checked courts.wa.gov, 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