Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Stafford v. Andrew Taffet, et al.
·U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon·US-FEDOtherprovisional
On 2026-03-23, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon declined sanctions because defendants did not request them, but warned that the plaintiffs’ false citations appeared to be unverified AI hallucinations. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with multiple fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Campbell v. MERS and Tucker v. HSBC.
- Court
- U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
- Date
- 2026-03-23
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- The appellate brief used multiple fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Campbell v. MERS and Tucker v. HSBC, which the court found nonexistent, misquoted, or unsupported.
- Outcome
- Other
- 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
- 2026-09-07
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
- Turgeon v. FHLMC, No. 1:25-cv-00510-SM-TSM (D.N.H.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, District of New Hampshire · OtherIn the District of New Hampshire, self-represented debtor Noella Turgeon appealed a bankruptcy order that struck her objection after false, hallucinated citations. Judge McAuliffe held the bankruptcy court acted within…
- Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 7:23-cv-04331-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.)2026-08-27 · US District Court, Southern District of New York · WarningIn the Southern District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Keith Ashmeade cited two nonexistent Southern District decisions while litigating discovery issues against Amazon. Magistrate Judge Reznik identified the…
- Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00855-JRR (D. Md.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, District of Maryland · WarningIn the District of Maryland, self-represented plaintiff Darrin Johnson again cited a case the court could not locate, after an earlier Rule 11 warning. Judge Rubin said the authority appeared to be hallucinated from gen…
- Potterf v. Wessels, No. 1:26-cv-10860-MFL-PTM (E.D. Mich.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · WarningIn the Eastern District of Michigan, self-represented plaintiffs admitted using artificial intelligence to draft objections with fictitious or erroneous citations and an invented Supreme Court quotation. Judge Leitman d…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Stafford v. Andrew Taffet, et al.”, safelegalai.com/tracker/stafford-v-andrew-taffet-et-al (accessed 2026-09-08). Data: CC BY 4.0.