Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Stafford v. Taffet
·United States District Court for the District of Oregon·US-FEDNoted, no consequenceprovisional
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
- United States 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
- Plaintiffs' response and second amended complaint contained false citations, including cases the court found were not extant and quoted cases for propositions they did not contain.
- 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
- Carter v. City of Buffalo, No. 25-CV-740 (W.D.N.Y.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of New York · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Zakkiyya Carter used case law the court said did not support her propositions, after an earlier screening order. Judge John L. Si…
- 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. Taffet”, safelegalai.com/tracker/stafford-v-andrew-taffet-et-al (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.