Davis v. Marion County Juvenile Detention Center
S.D. Indiana · May 20, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Indiana
- Record ID
- davis-v-marion-county-juvenile-detention-center-2026-05-20
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a $2,000 monetary sanction against the attorney for violating Rule 11(b).
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court imposed a $2,000 monetary sanction on attorney Tae Sture under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) for including two hallucinated legal citations in a court filing. The court rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation of a $7,500 sanction, finding that mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction.
The court reasoned that Rule 11 requires attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the existence and accuracy of legal citations. It found that the attorney's failure to verify citations generated by Fastcase constituted a breach of this duty. The court reduced the sanction from $7,500 to $2,000 based on mitigating factors: the attorney's lack of intent to deceive, the fact that the citations supported uncontroversial legal points, the attorney's 20-year clean disciplinary record, and the compressed filing deadline.
This case illustrates the judiciary's increasing focus on attorney accountability for AI-assisted research. It establishes that 'hallucinated' citations are a serious breach of the duty of competence and candor, regardless of whether the error was intentional or the result of reliance on legal research software.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Fastcase
- Known monetary consequence
- $2,000
- Procedural posture
- Order on Report and Recommendation regarding Rule 11 sanctions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Attorney stated he used Fastcase.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to Fastcase output as to any other research input.