Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections
·United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama·US-FEDWarningprovisional
The Northern District of Alabama on 2026-04-28 admonished counsel for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct in Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections. Counsel filed a submission with one false case quotation, including Thomas v. Dillard.
- Court
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
- Date
- 2026-04-28
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Plaintiff’s counsel attributed to Thomas v. Dillard Department Stores the quotation “Resign or be fired scenarios are classic jury questions,” but the language was not in that opinion. The court cautioned counsel under Rule 11.
- Outcome
- Warning
- 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
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
- G.P. v. Jose Hernandez Arevalo, No. C26-284-KKE (W.D. Wash.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of Washington · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent federal case in briefing against Turo. Judge Evanson described the citation as likely AI-fabricated, compelled arb…
- Williams v. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board, No. 4:26-cv-00433-P (N.D. Tex.)2026-08-27 · US District Court, Northern District of Texas · WarningIn the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs' counsel cited nonexistent and materially inapposite cases while trying to defeat qualified immunity. Judge Pittman called the effort borderline sanctionable, warned that ge…
- Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-06266 (N.D. Ill.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, Northern District of Illinois · WarningIn the Northern District of Illinois, Tyler Shelbert's lawyer filed a motion to strike that relied on a false reading of Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola. Chief Judge Kendall inferred AI-assisted drafting…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Tunstall v. Alabama Department of Corrections”, safelegalai.com/tracker/tunstall-v-alabama-department-of-corrections (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.