Taylor v. Prince George’s County, Maryland
D. Maryland · Dec 16, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Maryland
- Record ID
- taylor-v-prince-georges-county-maryland-2025-12-16
- Observed outcome
- The court recommended denying the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and referred the citation errors to the presiding judge for potential further action.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified multiple instances of hallucinated case law, including incorrect reporter citations, misstated holdings, and fabricated quotations in the plaintiffs' brief. The magistrate judge noted these errors are typical of generative AI hallucinations but did not definitively confirm AI use or impose sanctions, instead referring the matter to the presiding judge.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Arnold v. Burger King Corp., 719 F.2d 63, 65 (4th Cir. 1983) as a per curiam opinion reversing a fee award; the court notes Arnold is a real case but not per curiam and it affirmed a fee award. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited "Bruce & Tanya & Assocs., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 795 F. App'x 157, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2019)" but 795 F. App'x 157 is Wilborn v. Mansukhani and Bruce & Tanya's correct reporter citation is different and its holding was misstated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted language attributed to EEOC v. Great Steaks, Inc., 667 F.3d 510, 516 (4th Cir. 2012) (e.g., 'fees for defendants appropriate only in "egregious cases"'), but the opinion does not contain the quoted language.
Miscited reporters and wrong panel designations are AI tells — verify reporter pages and panel type before citing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees.
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 refers to generative AI tools generally.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.