Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington
CA Washington (d3) · Mar 17, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Washington (d3)
- Record ID
- gregory-richmond-and-lynne-richmond-v-city-of-newport-washington-2026-03-17
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Newport, dismissing the appellants' claims.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified multiple instances of AI-generated hallucinations in the appellants' briefing, including fabricated case citations (e.g., State v. Johnson, King County v. Vincent, Carlyle v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.) and misrepresented holdings in actual cases (e.g., Osborn v. Mason County, Bailey v. Town of Forks, Phillips v. King County).
The court reasoned that the appellants' citations were likely generated by AI, which the court described as 'notorious for fabricating opinions and/or quotes.' The court observed that the appellants cited real cases for propositions that did not appear in the opinions and cited other cases that the court could not locate in any legal database. The court held that the appellants failed to provide support for their legal theories and reaffirmed the duty of all litigants to verify the authenticity and accuracy of their cited authorities.
This case illustrates the judicial response to AI-generated hallucinations in pro se appellate filings. It reinforces the expectation that all litigants, regardless of representation status, must verify the existence and accuracy of every cited authority, as courts will not tolerate the submission of fabricated or misrepresented case law.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- False_quotations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Newport.
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 explicitly attributed the errors to the use of generative AI.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.