Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Armstrong v. City of Milwaukee
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin · Federal district courts · WI · · 2026 WL 1283883 · No. 24-CV-1389-JPS · order
The Eastern District of Wisconsin on 2026-05-11 granted the County leave to file a corrected reply brief after the same-day removal of a fictitious citation and found no prejudice in Armstrong v. City of Milwaukee. Counsel filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation.
- Disposition
- The court granted the County leave to file a corrected reply brief after the same-day removal of a fictitious citation and found no prejudice.
- Recorded conduct
- Counsel filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation. — outcome: other; actor: lawyer
- 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.
As a preliminary matter, the County moved for leave to file a corrected reply brief. ECF No. 44. Although the Court agrees withArmstrong'sassessmentthatthemotionwasnecessitated bytheinclusionofafictitiouscase,ECFNo. 47at2,theCourt does not have more information as to why that happened. Regardless, the County caught and corrected the error the same day, meaning that there is no prejudice in allowing the correction. Further, the County's original reply brief included real case law in support of the proposition that the County sought to make, meaning that the fictitious case would be redundant even if it were real. Thus, the Court will grant the County's motion to amend and correct the brief, ECF No. 44, and has considered the corrected brief, ECF No.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face