Sherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.
W.D. Virginia · May 20, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Virginia
- Record ID
- sherwood-v-county-of-botetourt-virginia-et-al-2026-05-20
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and proceeded to address the motions to dismiss the first amended complaint.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, finding that the continued reliance on fabricated case law and misrepresented statutes constituted bad faith. The court explicitly linked these errors to the improper use of generative AI tools and warned that such conduct violates Rule 11 duties to conduct reasonable inquiry into legal authorities.
The court reasoned that counsel's repeated submission of non-existent cases and misquoted statutes, despite prior notice, demonstrated bad faith. It held that Rule 11 requires attorneys to confirm the existence and validity of legal authorities. The court further noted that the reliance on generative AI, which lacks professional judgment, resulted in the submission of hallucinated citations that wasted judicial resources and threatened the reputation of the court and the legal profession.
This case illustrates the judicial response to 'hallucinated' legal research in federal filings. It serves as a precedent for how courts may treat bad-faith persistence in using AI-generated errors after they have been identified by opposing counsel or the court.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- generative AI tools
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum opinion denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and addressing motions to dismiss the first amended complaint.
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 attributed the errors to the use of generative AI tools.
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.