Ford v. Sherwin-Williams
D. Kansas · Mar 31, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Kansas
- Record ID
- ford-v-sherwin-williams-2026-03-31
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a warning to the plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated legal authority, citing D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff after identifying fabricated case law and quotations in his filings, which the court suspected were generated by artificial intelligence. The court cited D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01 to notify the plaintiff that future submissions of fabricated authority could lead to sanctions, including dismissal or monetary penalties.
The court identified that the cited Westlaw number (2021 WL 4129476) belonged to a California Court of Appeals case and the case number (No. 21-2223) involved different parties, leading the court to conclude the citation was fictitious and likely AI-generated.
This case illustrates judicial enforcement of local standing orders regarding AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It highlights the court's proactive role in verifying citations and the potential for procedural warnings to serve as a deterrent against the use of unverified AI research tools.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Employment
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum and Order ruling on defendant's Motion to Dismiss and various pro se motions, including a Motion for District Judge Review and a Motion for Default Judgment.
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
The court suspected the use of artificial intelligence.
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.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.