AI Hallucination Cases

Defendants' reply identified fictitious cases, incorrect citations, and non-existent quotations in Plaintiffs' response brief. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Corrected Citations; the Court noted formatting that suggested use of generative AI but declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs, advising compliance with Rule 11 in future filings.

See beginning of judgment: "Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist. These invalid citations appeared in the original court opinion and have been preserved as written since they are part of the official record. Any links to these invalid citations have been removed."

Plaintiff's opposition brief cited numerous nonexistent cases. Defendant identified the fabricated citations in its reply; plaintiff admitted reliance on an AI-based drafting tool and apologized. The court confirmed several cited cases do not exist but declined to pursue Rule 11 sanctions, finding apology, mitigation, and proportionality concerns.

The court identified that Plaintiff relied on a nonexistent case citation and noted the citation had been previously flagged in the record.

Rather amazingly, plaintiff asked and was granted leave to file a "Case Law Verification Index" that contained further hallucinations.

Relator admitted her petition contained citation errors and hallucinated cases after relying on inadequate assistance; court denied leave to amend and dismissed the writs.

Debtor cited a case the court could not locate; the court noted the citation appears incorrect and may be an AI "hallucination," and referenced other decisions sanctioning reliance on fabricated AI-generated cases.

In an earlier Report and Reccomendations, the court found that significant portions of the plaintiff's filings copied from an AI program included citations to cases that could not be identified in Westlaw and an apparent AI-generated medical report; the court struck the filings and instructed compliance with Rule 11 and practice standards.

The court observed that Mother's briefs included many cited authorities that do not exist and that one statute she cited was not on point. Mother admitted using Chat GPT to prepare pleadings. The court affirmed the trial court's orders and warned litigants to verify AI-generated citations.

The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare her Amended Grounds of Appeal. The Appeal Panel and respondent identified numerous incorrect or inapplicable citations and legal propositions generated by AI; the panel noted the appellant failed to verify those citations contrary to NCAT Procedural Direction 7 and treated the Amended Grounds as unreliable in parts when assessing whether questions of law were raised.