Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Hampton v. Lofton
·Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One·US-STATENoted, no consequenceprovisional
On 2026-03-31, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One affirmed and denied costs while noting that both self-represented appellate briefs contained hallucinated or unsupported citations. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities. The court resolved the merits while identifying the defective legal research.
- Court
- Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
- Date
- 2026-03-31
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Father's opening brief attributed findings to the superior court that did not appear in its order, and his opening and reply briefs contained legal citations that either did not support his positions or appeared to be fictitious.
- Outcome
- Noted, no consequence
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-08
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Tapscott v. Fariss, No. 25-1666 (Iowa Ct. App. 2026)2026-10-07 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · DismissalIn the Court of Appeals of Iowa, a self-represented appellant's final brief in a protective-order appeal contained multiple hallucinated case citations. After two earlier briefs were struck and the appellant failed to a…
- Washington v. Justice, No. 2D2025-2678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · DismissalIn Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, self-represented appellants filed a brief citing eleven cases the court could not find and likely generated by AI. After an unavailing show-cause response and a pattern of f…
- Shannon v. Shannon, 322 Neb. 451 (2026), No. S-25-5462026-10-02 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Filing struckIn Nebraska, the state Supreme Court struck a self-represented divorce litigant's appellate brief for fictitious citations produced by his admitted AI use. Extending Prososki v. Regan to unrepresented parties, it held s…
- R. M. v. Mohr, 353 Or App 182 (2026), A1880922026-09-23 · Oregon Court of Appeals · FineIn Oregon, the Court of Appeals ordered a self-represented restraining-order appellant to pay $250 after his brief cited three fabricated cases he admitted came from AI. The court had threatened $1,500, at $500 per fake…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Hampton v. Lofton”, safelegalai.com/tracker/hampton-v-lofton (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.