Shana Jordan, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | CHA relied on a non-existent case as controlling authority for admitting alternative-source evidence; plaintiffs identified it as fabricated and CHA conceded it was produced by an attorney using AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Another non-existent case cited in CHA filings identified by plaintiffs and attributed by the firm to AI-assisted drafting. || Misrepresented: Case Law | CHA misstated the holding of Barry v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., portraying it as affirming remittitur when the Illinois Supreme Court did not vacate the award. || Misrepresented: Case Law | CHA represented Hollis v. R. Latoria Construction as supporting remittitur where the Supreme Court actually affirmed and remanded for a new trial based on inadequacy of damages. || Misrepresented: Case Law | CHA mischaracterized Johnson v. Mers as involving a trial court reduction of pain-and-suffering awards; the case actually affirmed summary judgment for the employer and did not involve that trial scenario. || Misrepresented: Case Law | CHA quoted Sears v. Rutishauser for a principle about speculative damages requiring reduction, but the court held a different point regarding cross-examination of a treating physician; the quotation/point was misapplied. || False Quotes: Case Law | CHA included a quoted passage attributed to Thompson v. Gordon that the opinion does not contain; the court found the quote absent and the proposition unsupported by that case.

Post-discovery denial and slow disclosure transform a citation error into a $59K sanction; self-report the moment fabricated authority is flagged.