Corrections log

Sanction amount

Costs of ILS 4,000 payable to the State treasury because of the plaintiff's counsel's conduct in using AI that produced non-existent judgments and quotations (para. 31). The upstream 6,000 adds ILS 2,000 ordinary costs to defendants 4-7 for the dismissal of the claim against them (para. 30), which is not AI-related.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2927/yunes.pdf · Haifa Regional Labour Court, case 7669-06-24, 17 Aug 2026, paras 30-31 (2,000 ₪ to defendants 4-7; 4,000 ₪ to the State treasury for counsel's AI use; Hebrew original read, translation ours)

Sanction amount

Fine of DKK 10,000 payable to the state treasury by the respondent lawyer under Retsplejeloven section 147 c(1) for citing case law that did not exist in a direct approach to an unrepresented opposing party. The decision writes "10.000 kr." (Danish kroner).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2014/Advokathenvisteibrevtilmodpartentilpraksissomikkeek · Advokatnævnet, sagsnr. 2025-1655, 15 Dec 2025, operative part, p. 6: "[Indklagede] pålægges en bøde til statskassen på 10.000 kr."

Sanction amount

Wasted costs of AED 282,508 (indemnity basis) payable by the defendant's lawyers MIO Legal Consultants LLP to the claimant: AED 241,558 defence costs plus AED 40,950 for the wasted-costs application, the court finding it was the inappropriate use of AI research that triggered the need to review the Defence so thoroughly. Separate standard-basis costs of AED 245,000 are against Mr Alam, not for the AI conduct.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1204/Arabyads_Holding_v._Gulrez_Alam_Marghoob_Alam_UAE_1 · [2025] ADGMCFI 0032, Heath KC, 18 Dec 2025, decision 1 and paras 62-65, 94(a): "MIO Legal Consultants LLP shall pay Arabyads its costs in the sum of AED 282,508 which have been summarily assessed on the indemnity basis."

Sanction amount

Bad-faith litigation fine of 5% of the updated value of the claim (valor atualizado da causa), payable by the claimant to the respondent. The court states the fine as a percentage; the record does not give the claim value, so no currency amount is computed here. The R$3,731.72 (art. 477 CLT) and R$400/R$20,000 (costs) figures belong to the merits, not to the fine.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/564/28a8e98659526f2c66a0b6e2715ccc13.pdf · ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037, 3a VT Juiz de Fora, 2 Jul 2025, operative part, p. 8, ll. 261-262: "Por ter litigado de má-fé, o reclamante arcará com multa equivalente a 5% do valor atualizado da causa em prol da reclamada." (also l. 112: "5% do valor corrigido da causa")

Sanction amount

Wasted costs for the false citations, GBP 4,000 in total: GBP 2,000 payable by Ms Forey (counsel) and GBP 2,000 by Haringey Law Centre, in equal measure. The upstream figure of 11,000 does not appear in the judgment.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/300/Ayinde_v._Borough_of_Haringey_UK_High_Court_April_3_ · High Court (Admin), 3 Apr 2025, assessment down to GBP 4,000 and para. 72 (GBP 2,000 + GBP 2,000)

Sanction amount

Costs fixed at 9,600 payable personally by the lawyer, Mr Gurdial Singh Ranjit Singh, to the Minister (order 2; order 1 fixes 6,700 against the client Mr Dey), after the court found hallucinated authorities in his costs submissions and imposed sanctions. The order writes "$9,600.00" and names no currency; a Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia order is in Australian dollars, so it is recorded as AUD.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3104/Dey_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship_14_S · MLG 1637 of 2025, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2), 14 Sep 2026, orders 1-2 on p. 3: "2. Mr Gurdial Singh Ranjit Singh pay the Minister's costs fixed in the amount of $9,600.00."

Sanction amount

Costs ordered against the claimant, GBP 5,881.80 excluding VAT, for his unreasonable conduct: reliance on AI-generated case law (46 inaccurate or misleading citations, 9 wholly fictitious) in the skeleton argument, plus other items the tribunal costs separately; the order does not split the sum by ground. The upstream cell truncated the pence.

Primary source: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6925ca932945773cf12dd070/Dr_Mohamad_Hassan_v_ABC_In · Employment Tribunal 6005897/2024, Judgment para. 2 and Reasons para. 64: 'the Claimant must pay the Respondent's costs in the sum of £5,881.80 excluding VAT'

Sanction amount

Procedural fine (pořádková pokuta) of CZK 25,000 imposed on the complainant's lawyer for filing a constitutional complaint built on non-existent and grossly misread decisions; one quarter of the 100,000 Kč statutory ceiling. The order writes "25 000 Kč".

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2033/NALUS_-_datab%C3%A1ze_rozhodnut%C3%AD_%C3%9Astavn%C · Ústavní soud, I. ÚS 3004/25, 1 Dec 2025, operative part and paras 2, 10: "Mgr. Pavolu Kehlovi jako povinnému se ukládá pořádková pokuta ve výši 25 000 Kč."

Sanction amount

Personal costs ordered against the applicant's lawyer for the AI-related conduct: ILS 5,000 to the respondent plus ILS 5,000 to the State treasury, payable within 30 days. The upstream figure of 50,000 does not appear in the order. The separate ILS 10,000 costs to each respondent are the applicant's and not AI-related.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/442/Mahala_Association_v._Clalit_Health_Services_et_al._ · Tel Aviv District Court, 22 May 2025, para. 61 (5,000 ₪ to the respondent + 5,000 ₪ to the State treasury; Hebrew original read, translation ours)

Sanction amount

Bad-faith litigation fine of 3% of the corrected value of the case. The court states the case value as R$122,522.83; 3% of that is R$3,675.68 (derived, not literal; the court's 'valor corrigido' may be higher than the stated value, so treat as the minimum implied by the stated value). The upstream cell truncated it to 3675.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2879/0143435-40.2025.8.16.0000.pdf · TJPR Agravo 0143435-40.2025.8.16.0000, 8 May 2026, p. 26 (R$122.522,83; 'multa ... no percentual de 3% do valor corrigido da causa')

Sanction amount

Partial-indemnity costs of CAD 7,267 (including HST) ordered against the bankrupt for his motion, in which AI-fabricated authorities were filed. The judgment writes "$7267.00" and names no currency (it labels US-dollar sums "USD" and Canadian ones "CAD"); an Ontario Superior Court costs award is in Canadian dollars, so it is recorded as CAD.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1717/Re-Nicholson-2025-ONSC-1069-compressed.pdf · 2025 ONSC 1069, Ontario SCJ, 18 Feb 2025, costs paras: "I find that costs on the partial indemnity scale totalling $7267.00 (including HST) would be a result ..."

Sanction amount

Costs ordered against the father, GBP 5,900.63, for his litigation conduct as a whole: coercive control through litigation, unfounded allegations against the judge, the guardian and the mother, and reliance on faked cases without checking them (paras 55-59). The order does not split the sum by ground. The upstream cell rounded the pence.

Primary source: caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/2135 · [2025] EWHC 2135 (Fam), Lieven J, 30 Jul 2025, paras 55-59 ('The M makes an application for her costs in the sum of £5,900.63 ... I consider it appropriate to make an order that the F pays the M's costs in the sum of £5,900.63')

Sanction amount

Fine of 15 salarios mínimos legales mensuales vigentes (SMLMV) within the 10 to 50 SMLMV legal range. The court states the fine in SMLMV, not in pesos; the record gives no currency value and none is computed here.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1526/SANCION_ABOGADO_IA.pdf · Corte Suprema de Justicia de Colombia, AC739-2026, 13 Feb 2026, operative part, p. 45 (range p. 40)

Sanction amount

Costs ordered against the applicant in favour of the respondent insurer when the class-action certification request was withdrawn; the court grounds them on a tendentious, misleading filing (possibly an extortionate claim) and on reliance on AI hallucinations, tempered by the early withdrawal. Counsel was warned, no personal costs.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2957/adiby1.pdf · Tel Aviv District Court, Class Action 6989-05-25, 23 Aug 2026, para 28 and the result, p. 8 of 9 (Hebrew)

Sanction amount

Attorney's fees and costs awarded to Las Vegas Bistro under the 9 Jun 2026 order (ECF 415) for the AI-hallucinated quotations and cases, fixed by a stipulation the court approved on 6 Jul 2026 (ECF 426): $28,000.00, payable in $14,000, $7,000 and $7,000 instalments, with the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and Guinasso Law jointly and severally responsible.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.152288/gov.uscourts.nvd.152288.426.0.pdf · D. Nev. No. 2:21-cv-01676-APG-MDC, ECF 426 (order approving the stipulation of ECF 425, 6 Jul 2026), pp. 2-3, paras 2-4; docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60380040/williams-v-rashid/ (free RECAP copy)

Sanction amount

Sanction under the district court's inherent authority for giving the court caselaw that was 'misleading, false, [or] non-existent': 'respondents' reasonable costs and attorney fees in the amount of $2,341.25', payable by the pro se appellant Asiedu and affirmed on appeal. The upstream cell carries the figure rounded to 2341.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3044/Asiedu_USA_8_September_2026.pdf · Minn. Ct. App., opinion of 8 Sep 2026, p. 3 (background: district court sanction) and final disposition ("Affirmed")

Sanction amount

Costs of CAD 3,000 fixed against the appellant, payable to the respondent, for the time spent searching for non-existent cases in his submissions. The judgment writes "$3,000" and names no currency; a Saskatchewan court's dollar is the Canadian dollar, so it is recorded as CAD. Charlotin's "3000 USD" label has no basis in the text.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1749/Bahrani-v-Peters-2026-SKCA-2-compressed.pdf · Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, CACV4450, 2026 SKCA 2, 5 Jan 2026, final paragraph on costs (p. 25): "I would fix the costs payable by Mr. Bahrani to Ms. Peters at $3,000."

Sanction amount

Rule 11(c) sanction against counsel, payable to the Clerk of Court by 5 Dec 2025.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1075/Buchanan_v._Vuori_USA_20_November_2025.pdf · N.D. California order dated 2025-11-20 as published at the source URL, disposition text: “Orders Dal Bon to pay $250 to the Clerk of Court by December 5, 2025”

Sanction amount

Fine of 5 unidades tributarias mensuales (UTM) together with a one-month suspension. The court states the fine in UTM, not in pesos; the record does not give a currency value and none is computed here.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2536/SANCIONABOGADAIATERCERASALA.pdf · Corte Suprema de Chile, Tercera Sala, Rol N°23.322-2025, 22 Apr 2026, operative part, p. 3

Sanction amount

'sanctions her $5,000 for violating Rule 11' and 'Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay $5,000 to the Clerk of the Court within two weeks of the date of this Order for violating Rule 11' (the motion is 'riddled with AI hallucinations'); the upstream cell reads 4999.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1982/gov.uscourts.ilnd.475370.97.0.pdf · N.D. Ill. No. 1:25-cv-03096, Dkt 97 (corrected opinion and order of 9 Apr 2026), intro (p. 1) and conclusion (p. 5)

Sanction amount

Fee-shifting sanctions for the filing problems and improper use of generative AI, in two awards to two different payees under one order: $35,603.90 to the Fite Defendants (Mr. Watkins and Burrill Watkins LLC, jointly and severally) plus $11,453 to the Triad Defendants (Burrill Watkins LLC alone). The two awards are separate, not nested, so they add: $47,056.90. The register's 35603 was the Fite award only, without the cents. The Volokh post linked as source headlines it as $47K.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.192599/gov.uscourts.alnd.192599.116.0.pd · N.D. Ala. No. 2:24-cv-01802-AMM, ECF 116 (memorandum opinion and order, 31 Mar 2026), pp. 104-105, order paragraphs 10 and 12; docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69806554/rivera-v-triad-properties-corporation/ (free RECAP copy)

Sanction amount

Rule 11 monetary sanction against the party, payable to the Clerk of Court within 7 days.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1128/Lothamer_Tax_Resolution_v._Kimmel_USA_1_December_20 · W.D. Michigan order dated 2025-12-01 as published at the source URL, disposition text: “as a sanction for violations of Rule 11, Kimmel is required to pay $2,900.00 to the Clerk of Court within 7 days”

Sanction amount

Rule 11 sanctions in one order: individual fines of $3,000 (Howie), $2,000 (Scott) and $1,000 (Oliver), plus reimbursement of defense counsel's fees and costs of $23,495.90 ($23,423.50 fees + $72.40 costs), paid in equal shares of $11,747.95 by the Howie and Oliver firms. Total $29,495.90. The register's 29495 is that total without the cents; case-intelligence had $28,495 and 'four attorneys' (four were reprimanded, three fined).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/904/Mattox_v._Product_Innovations_Research_USA_22_Octobe · E.D. Okla. No. 6:24-cv-00235-JAR, Doc. 148, 22 Oct 2025, pp. 16-17 (fines) and p. 21 (fees and costs)

Sanction amount

Fine imposed on the attorney under the court's sanctions authority (hallucinated citations), ordered with a copy of the order to the state disciplinary commission.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3040/Cole_v._Hobby_Lobby_USA_2_September_21026.pdf · C.D. Illinois order dated 2026-09-02 as published at the source URL, disposition text: “Reyes is ORDERED to pay a fine of $1,000”; “monetary sanction of $1,000”

Sanction amount

Monetary sanction on plaintiff's counsel of record, payable to the Clerk's Fiscal Section by 30 Dec 2024.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/245/Mortazavi_v._Booz_Allen_Hamilton_US_DC_Central_Calif · C.D. California order dated 2024-10-30 as published at the source URL, disposition text: “SANCTIONS Plaintiff’s counsel of record in this case in the amount of $2,500”

Sanction amount

Costs of CAD 500 ordered against the self-represented applicant for misuse of AI in breach of the Court's AI Notice (joint submissions on costs), all taxes and disbursements included. The judgment writes "500 $" and names no currency; a Canadian court's dollar is the Canadian dollar, so it is recorded as CAD. Charlotin's "500 USD" label has no basis in the text.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2383/Beland-c.-Canada-Procureur-General-2026-CF-779.pdf · Federal Court, T-2397-25, 2026 FC 779 (2026 CF 779), paras 19 and 49 and judgment point 3 (French): "500 $ de dépens"

Sanction amount

The Guimaraes Court of Appeal imposed court costs of 5 UC of justice fee on the appellant and sent a copy of the judgment to the Bar after finding six non-existent cited rulings; no euro sanction is stated (the EUR 1,200 figure is the underlying criminal fine, and 1 EUR is an upstream placeholder).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2170/Tribunal_da_Rela%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_Guimar%C3%A3es_-_9 · pp. 8 and 16 (Dispositivo)

Sanction amount

Fine on counsel payable to the Clerk of Court (with bar referral and CLE).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2106/Carter_et_al_v_UZGlobal_LLC_USA_1_May_2025.pdf · D. New Mexico order dated 2026-05-01 as published at the source URL, disposition text: “ORDERS Ms. Scherr to pay a fine of $1,000 to the Clerk of Court”

Sanction amount

Attorney's fees awarded to the Baker Donelson defendants as the Rule 11 sanction for the plaintiff's misuse of AI in court filings (the reimbursement for ECF 19, 24, 26 and 32, set in the Sanctions Order of 2 Jun 2026): $22,320 for Blair (24.0 h at $930, cut from 25.0 h) plus $23,443 for Busey (39.4 h at $595, cut from 42.0 h) = $45,763.00, jointly and severally against Reaves Law Firm, PLLC and its CEO Henry Reaves III, due within 60 days. Fixed by the follow-up order after the accounting of 12 Jun 2026.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnwd.106576/gov.uscourts.tnwd.106576.43.0.pdf · W.D. Tenn. No. 2:25-cv-2623-SHL-atc, ECF 43 (Order Awarding Attorney's Fees, 10 Jul 2026), p. 4: "RLF is responsible for $22,320 for Blair's attorney's fees, and $23,443 for Busey's, for a total of $45,763.00"; docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70578707/reaves-law-firm-pllc-v-baker-donelson-bearman-caldwell-berkowitz-pc/ (free RECAP copy). RECAP lists two 'Reconsideration' entries (21 Jul 2026) and an opposition (4 Aug 2026) with no ruling.

Sanction amount

Attorney's fees payable by appellants' counsel to appellee's counsel as a sanction for misconduct before the court.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/482/Rochon_Eidsvig__Rochon_Hafer_v._JGB_Collateral_Texas · Texas CA order dated 2025-06-12 as published at the source URL, disposition text: “pay $2,500 in attorney’s fees to Appellee’s counsel as a sanction for her misconduct”

Sanction amount

Fine for bad-faith litigation of one salário mínimo. The court states the fine as a minimum wage, not in reais; the record gives no currency value and none is computed here.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/653/Silva_Cordeiro_v._Municipio_de_Santana_do_Parnaiba.p · TJSP, AI 2163204-21.2025.8.26.0000, order p. 5

Sanction amount

Sanctions order of 10 Oct 2025 (ECF 203) implementing the 3 Oct 2025 order (ECF 201) for fabricated citations: the court reviewed Athena's fees and costs submission (ECF 202), found the hours and rate reasonable and ordered counsel Glenn Ellis to pay Athena $8,151.00.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.199864/gov.uscourts.dcd.199864.203.0.pdf · D.D.C. No. 18-cv-02080-APM, ECF 203 (Sanctions Order, 10 Oct 2025), p. 1 of 1; docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7807828/smith-v-athena-construction-group-inc/ (free RECAP copy)

Sanction amount

Sanctions list (p. 7): 'Attorney Gottlieb and the law firm each shall donate $1000 to the CT Bar Institute', USD 2,000 in total. The upstream USD 1,000 is per sanctioned party and there are two; it is a donation to a legal-education institute ordered by the court as a sanction for the AI-generated filings.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2723/Conn_Supreme_Court_AI_sanction_20260731.pdf · pp. 7-8, Conn. Sup. Ct. SC 21183/SC 21184, 355 Conn. 902, per curiam of 31 July 2026

Sanction amount

Court fine (sudebnyi shtraf) of RUB 50,000 imposed on the defendant company OOO 'TsSS' (not on its representative) for contempt of court, payable to the federal budget: 'наложить на ООО «ЦСС» судебный штраф в размере 50 000 руб. за проявление неуважения к суду' (p. 7-8). The document says roubles; the upstream cell has no currency.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2172/A27-7831-2025_20260514_Opredelenie.pdf · determination pp. 7-8 (operative part); Russian, read without an official translation

Sanction amount

Monetary sanction against plaintiff's counsel, payable immediately to the defendant, reduced to a sum certain of $1,000.00 from the reasonable fees and costs awarded in the 18 Dec 2025 order (ECF 15) and memorandum opinion (ECF 16); the reduction followed a sealed hearing held on 9 Jan 2026.

Primary source: www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719019/zhang-v-national-public-radio-inc/ · D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00699-BAH, docket text of the minute order of 9 Jan 2026 (read in the CourtListener RECAP search index on 24 Oct 2026)

Sanction amount

Appellate sanction on the appellant for a frivolous appeal, payable to the clerk of the court.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1984/Zand_v_Sukumar_USA_14_April_2026.pdf · CA California (1d) order dated 2026-04-14 as published at the source URL, disposition text: “Zand is ordered to pay $10,000 in sanctions to the clerk of this court for the frivolous pursuit of this appeal”

Sanction amount

Trial-court attorney fees awarded to the special administrator, payable by the pro se appellant (inherent-authority bad-faith fee award; York had requested $26,198.61); affirmed on appeal. Appellate fees were also granted, amount left to the trial court on remand.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3282/Davis_v._Tressler_USA_14-10-2026.pdf · Ind. Ct. App. No. 25A-PL-1882, 14 Oct 2026, paras 9, 28, 29

Decision date

Decision-date rule (reviewed protocol, decision #04): the record's 2025-06-26 is the order to show cause (Doc. 42, minutes dated 26 Jun 2025, hearing set for 27 Jun 3:00 PM). The sanction was imposed at that hearing: docket entry 44 (27 Jun 2025, minutes of motion hearing before Judge Gee) reads 'The Court imposes Rule 11 sanctions in the amount of $500 on Plaintiff's counsel, the Rhema Law Group PC, for its filing of a brief that contained invalid case citations generated by the use of an artificial intelligence application'; entry 46 (18 Jul 2025) records the $500 received from Rhema Law Group. The order itself is PDF-only on PACER and was not read (no login, no evasion); the date rests on the public docket text.

Primary source: www.courtlistener.com/docket/68406790/twist-it-up-inc-v-annie-international-inc/ · C.D. Cal. 8:24-cv-00736-DMG-ADS, docket entries 42 (26 Jun 2025), 44 (27 Jun 2025), 46 (18 Jul 2025); public CourtListener docket page text, read 30 Oct 2026 (saved copy /tmp/bad5/tdock.html by vortex-tracker-bad5; a fresh fetch on 31 Oct returned 403 and was not worked around)

This record is no longer listed in the corpus (merged or removed); the entry is kept for the audit trail.

Decision date

Model-assisted reading of the primary text (not human legal review): Deepak Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 12195/2025, 2026 INSC 1134, signed 'NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 15, 2026'. Para 74 records the compilation 'replete with AI generated non-existent judgments', the exemplary costs that were proposed and then replaced by 'no order as to costs' after the first appellant's death. The judgment states no hearing date, so the corpus 8 Dec 2025 cannot be confirmed from it; the decision date is 15 Oct 2026. The text was read from a third-party copy of the Court's PDF (lawchakra.in, header 2026 INSC 1134); sci.gov.in was not reached.

Primary source: lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/sc-deepak-raheja-v-omkara-assets-ai-fake-judgments · para 74, PDF pp. 49-50 of 50

Decision date

The memorandum opinion is stamped 'Document 50 Filed 09/30/25' on every page (1:24-cv-01163-JB-GBW); the upstream 2025-02-01 predates the filing (the motions it decides were filed Nov 2024 to Aug 2025) and matches the source URL's 30 September 2025.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/839/Tomlin_v._State_of_New_Mexico_USA_30_September_2025. · header of p. 1 and following; motions listed on pp. 1-2

Decision date

The order's signature line reads 'DATED this 9th day of June, 2025', a typo: the same page is stamped 'Filed 06/09/26', the order sets deadlines of 26 Jun and 14 Jul 2026, and the docket enters it as ECF 415 on 2026-06-09 (ECF 410 to 414 are dated May and June 2026).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2389/Williams_v._Rashid_USA_10_June_2026.pdf · D. Nev. No. 2:21-cv-01676-APG-MDC, ECF 415, signature page (p. 16) and footer of every page; docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60380040/williams-v-rashid/ entry 415

Decision date

Decision-date rule (reviewed protocol, decision #04): `date` is the day the operative order was made when the document states it and the written grounds were issued more than 7 days later. The personal costs order (SGD 900) was made at the final hearing on 27 Jan 2026 ('I gave the parties my brief reasons at the final hearing of this matter on 27 January 2026', para 2); the full written grounds are dated 4 May 2026 (version of 04 May 2026).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2468/Goh_Chin_Cheng_2026_SGHCR_13.pdf · [2026] SGHCR 13, paras 2 and 97, footer 'Version No 1: 04 May 2026'

Decision date

The judgment states 'Date of judgment: 27 August 2024' and 'DATE OF ORDER: 27 AUGUST 2024'; 19 August 2024 is only the date of the solicitor's last submissions (order 5).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/361/In_Re_Dayal_Australia_August_27_2024.pdf · [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166, cover page, Orders (order 5) and certification

Decision date

Decision-date rule (reviewed protocol, decision #04): the cover page of [2025] FCA 731 reads 'Date of judgment: 22 April 2025' and 'Date of publication of reasons: 2 July 2025'; the costs order is dated 22 April 2025 and the reasons came 71 days later.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/533/Murray_v._Victoria_2_July_2025_Australia.docx · [2025] FCA 731 (Murphy J), cover page and 'Date of order'

Decision date

Decision-date rule (reviewed protocol, decision #04): the memorandum opinion is 'DATED, this the 10th day of March, 2026' (p. 4). 3 October 2025 is the day the defence filed the sentencing memorandum with the errors (p. 1, 'On October 3, 2025 ... defendant filed sentencing memorandum'); the court's action on the AI issue was at the 9 October 2025 hearing (p. 3). Both are more than 7 days from the opinion.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1658/USA_v._Simmons_USA_10_March_2026.pdf · E.D.N.C., memorandum opinion pp. 1-4 and signature line

Decision date

Decision-date rule (reviewed protocol, decision #04): page 1 says 'Резолютивная часть определения объявлена 05 мая 2026 года. Определение изготовлено в полном объеме 14 мая 2026 года' (operative part announced 5 May 2026, full text prepared 14 May 2026). The 9-day gap exceeds 7 days and the document itself declares the operative date, so the decision date is 5 May 2026; the 14 May publication date is kept here.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2172/A27-7831-2025_20260514_Opredelenie.pdf · Arbitrazh Court of the West Siberian District (Tyumen), case A27-7831/2025, determination p. 1 (header) and p. 8 (operative part); Russian, read without an official translation

Decision date

Decision-date rule (reviewed protocol, decision #04): the order is signed 'SO ORDERED, this 11th day of July 2025' (p. 9) and only stamped 'Filed 07/14/25'; the operative order that imposes the USD 1,000 sanction is the signed one. Publication date (14 July) kept here; a 3-day difference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/593/JACKSON_v._AUTO_OWNERS_INSURANCE_COMPANY_USA_14_July · M.D. Ga. (Valdosta), order p. 8-9: sanction paragraph and signature block

Outcome

The order imposes only a $1,000 Rule 11 penalty on counsel, payable to the Clerk of Court within 14 days, and orders her to serve a copy on her client. It declines to refer her to any disciplinary body or revoke her pro hac vice status, and never reprimands her. The upstream outcome 'public reprimand' is not in the order, and its mention of a disciplinary referral made the importer tag the case bar-referral although the court refused one.

Primary source: caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-ed-new-yor/117206693.html · Order Imposing Sanctions, Dunst M.J., 24-CV-7399 (LGD), E.D.N.Y. 24 Apr 2025: sanctions section (read in full): "A penalty of $1,000"; "The Court declines to refer Plaintiff's counsel to any disciplinary body"; "or to revoke her pro hac vice status"; service on Plaintiff Benjamin with proof on ECF. The word 'reprimand' does not appear.

Outcome

The upstream Outcome cell is blank. The memorandum opinion (Doc. 105) grants GDIT's summary judgment motion and denies the plaintiff's reconsideration, leave-to-amend and supplemental-brief motions (and the AO's and GDIT's requests for relief from further filings). On the AI-related citations it only notes them (p.19 and n.3) and imposes nothing.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1909/Nguedi_v._AO_USA_31_March_2026.pdf · Opinion p.1 and Conclusion (p.57): the Court "will GRANT GDIT's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 89; will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. 74; will DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief, Dkt. 92". p.19: "Plaintiff's filings contain multiple inaccurate or misleading citations, perhaps due to the use of artificial intelligence"; "the use of nonexistent quotations and misleading case citations 'dramatically weakens' his submissions"; the Court "has nonetheless considered the merits" (Rule 56(e)(3)). No sanction, fine or referral appears in the opinion.

Details

The sanction order (ECF No. 71, Memorandum Order filed 6 Oct 2025) is the document that imposes the USD 5,000 sanction and revokes pro hac vice status; the linked Volokh post reproduces only the earlier show-cause order (ECF No. 53, 26 Jun 2025), which lists possible sanctions and imposes none. The upstream Professional Sanction cell said No although the order revokes the attorney's pro hac vice status.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.314851/gov.uscourts.pawd.314851.71.0.pdf · ECF No. 71, p.5: "monetary sanctions are imposed on Attorney Tyrone Blackburn in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00)" and "the five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) monetary sanction imposed upon Blackburn is awarded to Plaintiff's counsel as attorneys' fees"; p.6: "due to his misconduct and violations of court rules, Blackburn's pro hac vice status is REVOKED". p.1: he "admitted that the citation issues highlighted by the Memo Order were caused by his use of generative artificial intelligence (\"AI\") to draft his briefs."

Professional Sanction

The sanction order (ECF No. 71, Memorandum Order filed 6 Oct 2025) is the document that imposes the USD 5,000 sanction and revokes pro hac vice status; the linked Volokh post reproduces only the earlier show-cause order (ECF No. 53, 26 Jun 2025), which lists possible sanctions and imposes none. The upstream Professional Sanction cell said No although the order revokes the attorney's pro hac vice status.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.314851/gov.uscourts.pawd.314851.71.0.pdf · ECF No. 71, p.5: "monetary sanctions are imposed on Attorney Tyrone Blackburn in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00)" and "the five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) monetary sanction imposed upon Blackburn is awarded to Plaintiff's counsel as attorneys' fees"; p.6: "due to his misconduct and violations of court rules, Blackburn's pro hac vice status is REVOKED". p.1: he "admitted that the citation issues highlighted by the Memo Order were caused by his use of generative artificial intelligence (\"AI\") to draft his briefs."

Outcome

Upstream outcome cell is blank. The Amarillo court's memorandum opinion affirms the judgment and holds the brief inadequate (Rule 38.1) partly because of non-existent citations; it imposes nothing for that. The USD 14,271.25 is the trial court's discovery fee award, unrelated to AI, so the amount stays null.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2111/Adams_v._Butler_USA_5_May_2026.pdf · No. 07-25-00191-CV (Tex. App.-Amarillo, 5 May 2026), pp. 1, 3-4 (waiver due to inadequate briefing: 'several citations ... appear to be non-existent'; 'fictitious quotations') and Conclusion p. 7: 'We resolve Adams's issues against her and affirm the judgment of the trial court.'

Outcome

The D. Alaska order (No. 3:24-cv-0007-HRH, 12 Feb 2026, Judge Holland) grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket 14) on the ADEA and ADA claims and dismisses the complaint (Part V). Footnote 4 only records that the defendants 'have provided a list identifying 17 cases cited by Plaintiff that quote language that does not exist in the case, including one where the language is correct but from a different case' (Docket 23-1) and says AI 'requires caution' and that attorneys should use AI only for easily verifiable tasks. The court makes no finding that each of the 17 quotations is fabricated, issues no order to show cause, no fine, fee award or referral. The upstream Outcome cell is empty, so the page showed 'no adjudicated outcome recorded' and its why-it-matters line asserted 'seventeen fake quotations' as a finding.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1487/ANDRE_LEGARZA_Plaintiff_v_NORTHERN_STAR_ALASKA_INC_ · Part V Conclusion: "Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket No. 14 is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED" (p. 5); footnote 4 (p. 4, text 'Defendants have provided a list identifying 17 cases cited by Plaintiff that "quote language that does not exist in the case,"... The Court recommends that attorneys also follow the guidance provided to the judiciary'); no sanction stated anywhere in the order (Westlaw copy 2026 WL 396509, 6 pp.)

Outcome

Upstream outcome cell is blank. The 2026 ONSBT 2353 decision grants the appeal in part on overpayment grounds; the AI remark is only that the argument was confusing where caselaw was cited. The CAD 14,199 is the overpayment, not a sanction, so the amount stays null.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2597/2504-02909-Re-2026-ONSBT-2353.pdf · 2026 ONSBT 2353 (SBT 2504-02909) para 9 (DECISION items 1-3) and the paragraph recording that the appellant 'relied on Artificial Intelligence software to draft her submissions. While doing so is not prohibited, we found the argument confusing especially where caselaw was cited'.

Details

Upstream outcome cell is blank. The endorsement strikes the jury notice and fixes costs of the motion in favour of the successful party; the judge only infers (para 29) that a self-represented defendant used generative AI and draws no penalty from it, so the amount cell stays null. The outcome text leaves out the CAD 7,000 partial-indemnity motion costs (paras 42-43), which go to the successful party for the jury-notice motion, and the word 'struck' because both would tag the record as a monetary sanction or a struck filing, which the court did not do for the AI inference; the jury notice ruling and the figure stay in the summary (Details), which keeps the text the record already had.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1705/Garrick-v-Halton-Police-Board-2026-ONSC-802.pdf · 2026 ONSC 802 (Agarwal J, 10 Feb 2026) para 37 ('I endorse an order striking out the plaintiffs' jury notice'), para 29 ('I infer that she's using generative AI'), paras 42-43 (costs of $7000 inclusive, partial indemnity, to the Halton police defendants).

Outcome

Upstream outcome cell is blank. The endorsement strikes the jury notice and fixes costs of the motion in favour of the successful party; the judge only infers (para 29) that a self-represented defendant used generative AI and draws no penalty from it, so the amount cell stays null. The outcome text leaves out the CAD 7,000 partial-indemnity motion costs (paras 42-43), which go to the successful party for the jury-notice motion, and the word 'struck' because both would tag the record as a monetary sanction or a struck filing, which the court did not do for the AI inference; the jury notice ruling and the figure stay in the summary (Details), which keeps the text the record already had.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1705/Garrick-v-Halton-Police-Board-2026-ONSC-802.pdf · 2026 ONSC 802 (Agarwal J, 10 Feb 2026) para 37 ('I endorse an order striking out the plaintiffs' jury notice'), para 29 ('I infer that she's using generative AI'), paras 42-43 (costs of $7000 inclusive, partial indemnity, to the Halton police defendants).

Outcome

The grounds of decision call the SGD 900 a personal costs order against counsel (paras 91, 98: made under the court’s inherent powers, ‘not to compensate for or punish the use of AI per se’), not a sanction as such. Counsel denied using AI tools (para 88); the court says it was immaterial whether the miscitations came from AI or carelessness and had only ‘doubts’ (para 98), so the upstream outcome label ‘Monetary Sanction’ is replaced by the order the court made. The SGD 900 cell and the AI-tool label are left as upstream.

Primary source: www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHCR_13 · [2026] SGHCR 13 paras 88, 91, 93, 95, 98: ‘I ordered Mr Natverlal to personally pay Choco Up costs in the sum of $900 as a consequence of his miscitations’; ‘no part of the personal costs order … ought to be charged or passed on … to Mr Goh’; ‘Mr Natverlal denied having used any AI tools’; ‘immaterial whether the miscitations were the product of the use … of artificial intelligence, or the result of human carelessness’

Outcome

The Fifth Circuit's published opinion (No. 25-60496, filed 22 Oct 2026, Smith, Haynes and Engelhardt, JJ.) vacates the preliminary injunction and remands for assignment to a different district judge. It finds that the 'corrected' TRO still cited 'Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, 503 F.2d 422, 426-27 (4th Cir. 1974)', which 'does not even exist; it is an apparent AI hallucination'. The opinion states no monetary amount and imposes no fine or disciplinary measure, so none is recorded.

Primary source: www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60496-CV0.pdf · "We vacate the injunction and remand for reassignment to a different district judge." (slip op. p. 2); "it was discovered that even the 'corrected' TRO ... still contained hallucinated information (namely, a citation to a purported Fourth Circuit case, 'Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk,' that does not exist)" (p. 3); "That case does not even exist; it is an apparent AI hallucination." (p. 8, text and n.13); "we vacate and remand for assignment to a different district judge" (p. 4); Part II, "This Case Must Be Reassigned on Remand" (pp. 6, 13-14)

Details

The 10,000 CAD is costs, not a fine: the Law Society Tribunal order of 16 Jul 2026 suspends the lawyer for six months and says she 'shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,000' in two instalments of $5,000 (31 Dec 2026 and 31 Dec 2027). The civil court (2025 ONSC 2965) imposed no fine and no costs for the AI conduct. The upstream outcome and sequel text called it a fine.

Primary source: lawsocietytribunal.ca/document-html/lee-2026-07-16/ · Law Society Tribunal, order of 16 Jul 2026: 'The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,000 in two equal instalments of $5,000 each'

Outcome

The 10,000 CAD is costs, not a fine: the Law Society Tribunal order of 16 Jul 2026 suspends the lawyer for six months and says she 'shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,000' in two instalments of $5,000 (31 Dec 2026 and 31 Dec 2027). The civil court (2025 ONSC 2965) imposed no fine and no costs for the AI conduct. The upstream outcome and sequel text called it a fine.

Primary source: lawsocietytribunal.ca/document-html/lee-2026-07-16/ · Law Society Tribunal, order of 16 Jul 2026: 'The respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $10,000 in two equal instalments of $5,000 each'

Outcome

Fourth DCA No. 4D2026-2262: opinion of 16 Sep 2026 denied the petition and ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions such as Florida Bar referral should not be imposed; the per curiam order of 21 Oct 2026 refers the matter to the Florida Bar. Neither document states a monetary amount, costs or fees against counsel, so no amount is recorded.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/10/21/lorie_jean_lisandrillo_v._renee_palozzi.pdf · "We refer this matter to the Florida Bar and write only to mention a few observations." and "Matter referred to the Florida Bar." (order of 21 Oct 2026, pp. 1-2); "Order to show cause ... why sanctions, such as referral to the Florida Bar ... should not be imposed" (opinion of 16 Sep 2026, p. 15)

Outcome

Iowa Court of Appeals No. 24-1421, opinion filed 6 Aug 2025, section 'A Preliminary Concern': the court affirms on the merits and, separately, remarks on the fake Iowa cases and the possible AI misuse and stresses the verification duty of self-represented litigants and attorneys. The opinion contains no mention of sanctions, fees or any order against Luke, so the aggregator's bare 'Warning' is an admonition without a sanction. Read from the court's own PDF (the Justia source URL returns 403 from this host and was not circumvented).

Primary source: iowaappeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/24-1421-Luke-v.-Iowa-HHS.pdf · "But we also note that Luke’s brief is riddled with citations to nonexistent Iowa cases. We share the appellees’ concerns that Luke possibly misused an artificial intelligence tool when preparing his brief, resulting in pages of discussion based on fake cases. And we stress that self-represented litigants and attorneys alike have a duty to independently verify the authenticity and veracity of all sources and assertions when relying on artificial intelligence tools to prepare trial or appellate court filings." (No. 24-1421, slip op. pp. 2-3; the word "sanction" does not appear in the opinion.)

Outcome

The S.D. Fla. order (Slip Copy, 2026) accepts Magistrate Judge McCabe's Report and Recommendation and grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. Footnote 6 observes that the plaintiff supported an objection with 'seemingly hallucinated quotations' from Sims v. Metro. Dade Cnty. and Shaw v. City of Selma; the order imposes no sanction, fine or referral. The upstream Outcome cell is empty, so the page showed 'no adjudicated outcome recorded' beside a summary that states the summary judgment.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1419/Henry_v._Iannone__Deacetis_USA_28_January_2026.pdf · "the Report [ECF No. 341] is ACCEPTED, and the Motion [ECF No. 304] is GRANTED." (p. 1); "Plaintiff attempts to support this objection by citing seemingly hallucinated quotations from cases such as Sims v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 972 F.2d 1230 (11th Cir. 1992), and Shaw v. City of Selma, 884 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2018)" (n.6, p. 5); no sanction is stated anywhere in the order

Outcome

The Eighth District (State ex rel. Eldridge v. Kilbane, 2025-Ohio-5053, No. 115338, 31 Oct 2025) grants the judge's motion to dismiss the writ action, declines the relator's suggestion to amend her petition with correct legal authority because she did not proffer a proper motion to amend, orders the relator to pay costs and enters 'Writs dismissed.' The upstream Outcome cell is empty, so the page showed 'no adjudicated outcome recorded' beside a summary that states the dismissal. No monetary amount and no sanction for the hallucinated cases is stated (costs are the ordinary cost of the dismissed action), so none is recorded.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1002/Eldridge_v._Kilbane_USA_31_October_2025.pdf · "Accordingly, this court grants the respondent's motion to dismiss this writ action. Relator to pay costs." (¶ 17, p. 4); "Writs dismissed." (¶ 18, p. 4); "The court declines Eldridge's suggestion that this court allow her to amend her petition with correct legal authority. She did not proffer a proper motion to amend, and the court doubts the efficacy of such efforts." (¶ 16, p. 4); judgment line "WRITS DISMISSED" (p. 1); Eldridge's brief acknowledged "citation errors and hallucinated cases" because she "relied on assistance that proved inadequate" (¶ 1, p. 1)

This record is no longer listed in the corpus (merged or removed); the entry is kept for the audit trail.

Outcome

Upstream outcome cell is blank. The VGH Baden-Württemberg order (8 Jul 2025) dismisses the Beschwerden under § 146(4) VwGO and apportions costs by the ordinary rule; the citation remark is an aside ('Lediglich ergänzend'). The EUR 11,250 is the value of the dispute (Streitwert), not a sanction, so the amount stays null. The ordinary allocation of the appeal's costs (operative part, para 3) is not a measure for the citations, so the outcome text leaves it out (the word would tag the record as a monetary sanction).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1199/VGH_3_S_1012_25_Germany_2025_UWvz3ZB.pdf · VGH 3 S 1012/25, Beschluss 8 Jul 2025: operative part (Beschwerden verworfen; Kosten; Streitwert 11.250 EUR) and Gründe 2 ('Lediglich ergänzend weist der Senat darauf hin, dass es befremdet, dass die Antragsteller eine Vielzahl nicht auffindbarer Entscheidungen zitieren').

Outcome

Upstream outcome cell is blank. [2025] FWC 2817 awards costs because the application lacked reasonable prospects and the applicant kept pursuing it after warnings; paras 15-16 only record that two cited cases do not exist and the applicant disclosed AI use. The amount stays null (not attributable to the AI conduct; the decision itself gives two different totals).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1011/Vivek_Singha_v_Metal_Manufactures_Pty_Limited_2025_ · [2025] FWC 2817 (8 Oct 2025) paras 16 ('these cases do not exist ... use of AI'), 33-34 (costs ground), costs sum 'in the amount of $7,869' and footnote 27 'Total costs awarded = $7,689'.

Outcome

The N.D. Ind. report and recommendation (No. 2:25-cv-00212, DE 29, 4 Nov 2025) grants the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a 'Case Law Verification Index' only 'to the extent and for the purposes described', says that allowing the filing is not a determination that the listed cases exist, reminds the plaintiff that Rule 11(b)(2) sanctions may be imposed, and recommends that the district court grant the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and deny the Rule 59(e) motion. No sanction is imposed. It is a recommendation: the district judge's later ruling was not read.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1060/Smith_v._Santander_USA_4_November_2025.pdf · "The Court allows the filing of the document, but allowance of the filing is not a determination that the cases included on the list even exist" and "Sanctions may be imposed against a party who violates that rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)." (p. 2); "The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT Chrysler Capital's Motion to Dismiss [DE 17] and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim" and "RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion" (pp. 12-13)

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), vortex-tracker-e150: the Tribunal (Judge Purcell) refused the Applicant's own s.20C / para 5A and Rule 13(2) fee-reimbursement applications, partly because of AI hallucinated legislation and cases (paras 32(b), 33(b)). No costs, fee or other payment was ordered against him and no amount is stated, so the upstream 'Cost-related' wording is not a monetary sanction (same reading as vortex-tracker-0f93 and the Stephen C. entry).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2154/Jeffs_v._Levisham_UK_16_March_2026.pdf · Decision paras 1-4 (applications refused), 15-16 (AI-invented regulation 7(5) wording and cases), 32(b) and 33(b) (Costs)

This record is no longer listed in the corpus (merged or removed); the entry is kept for the audit trail.

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The judgment grants the provisional injunction (the defendant must sign the closing of the share sale, or the sale is declared enforceable) and calls reliance on AI advice with legal hallucinations abusive; it does not 'give no weight' as the upstream outcome says.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1971/9525-1260-Quebec-inc.-c.-Donato-2026-QCCS-1142.pdf · 9525-1260 Quebec inc. c. Donato, 2026 QCCS 1142

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The outcome omits who was admonished: Cervantes publicly admonished, ordered to circulate the decision in the firm and CLE; Webb admonished and ordered to file a declaration (pp. 13-14).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/976/Hill_v._Workday_USA_5_September_2025.pdf · Hill v Workday, pp. 13-14

Party(ies)

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The decision does not say Veilleux is a lawyer.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2152/Carpenters-Regional-Council-United-Brother.pdf · Carpenters Regional Council order, see informe

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The warning is conditional and the motion for reconsideration was denied.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2129/Neri_v_Albuquerque_Public_Schools_et_USA_7_May_2026 · Neri v APS order

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The complaint is rejected as untimely; no sanction. The upstream outcome is empty.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1130/Deslile_Canada_3_October_2025.pdf · Delisle v CAPE

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The court issues a formal warning on AI use (no sanction); the upstream outcome only says counsel apologized.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2392/Doe_v._Columbia_U_USA_5_May_2026.pdf · Doe v Columbia order

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The order strikes the surreply and denies leave to file an amended surreply; the upstream 'Brief struck' omits the denial.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1875/dsme_construction_co._ltd._63878.pdf · ASBCA order, see informe

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The claims are rejected; the hallucinated citations are noted without sanction; the plaintiff is represented by a non-lawyer partner.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1127/Heneghan_v._The_Owners_Strata_Plan_187_Canada_2_Dec · Heneghan v Strata Plan 187, see informe

Party(ies)

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The claims are rejected; the hallucinated citations are noted without sanction; the plaintiff is represented by a non-lawyer partner.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1127/Heneghan_v._The_Owners_Strata_Plan_187_Canada_2_Dec · Heneghan v Strata Plan 187, see informe

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: Upper Tribunal (IAC) reported decision on fraudulent documents; appeals refused on remaking, no AI sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3252/Hoxha_v._Mehmood_UK_21-08-2026.pdf · Hoxha and others (Tanveer Ahmed), see informe

Hallucination Items

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: Vega-Lara and Segarra-Miranda exist but under different citations: the debtor mis-cited them; they are not fabricated cases.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1784/In_re_perkins.pdf · In re Perkins

This record is no longer listed in the corpus (merged or removed); the entry is kept for the audit trail.

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The court struck the portions of the petition with the false citations; the upstream outcome is empty.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1895/Interest_of_WG_USA_1_April_2026.pdf · In the Interest of W.G., see informe

Hallucination Items

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The claim is denied and no sanction or amount is imposed; the upstream 'costs' wording adds a monetary type; the regulations cited are inapplicable, not fabricated.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1436/GOODMAN_10-07-25_8461-RELO__STEPHEN_C_DECISION.pdf · Stephen C. decision

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The claim is denied and no sanction or amount is imposed; the upstream 'costs' wording adds a monetary type; the regulations cited are inapplicable, not fabricated.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1436/GOODMAN_10-07-25_8461-RELO__STEPHEN_C_DECISION.pdf · Stephen C. decision

Hallucination Items

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The non-existent decision was cited by the adoptive father (not a lawyer) in a letter to the visa officer, not by counsel before the court (paras 9-12: counsel only filed late).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2908/Kibondo-Kilongozi-v.-Canada-Citizenship-and-Immigra · Kilongozi v Minister, paras 9-12

Party(ies)

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The non-existent decision was cited by the adoptive father (not a lawyer) in a letter to the visa officer, not by counsel before the court (paras 9-12: counsel only filed late).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2908/Kibondo-Kilongozi-v.-Canada-Citizenship-and-Immigra · Kilongozi v Minister, paras 9-12

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: All claims are decided against the plaintiff on the merits; the order imposes no sanction and does not mention AI.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1612/Merz_v_City_of_Kalama_USA_13_February_2026.pdf · Merz v City of Kalama order

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The appeal is rejected and appellate attorney's fees go to the mother (App. R. 66(E)), amount to be set on remand; the upstream outcome is empty.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1507/Mutugu_v_Kiaraho.pdf · Mutugu v Kiaraho

Monetary Penalty

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: '1 BRL' is a placeholder: the fine is 1% of the value of the claim (p. 8), amount not stated; the decision does not say the appellant had counsel.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2854/1786868162460.pdf · p. 8

Party(ies)

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: '1 BRL' is a placeholder: the fine is 1% of the value of the claim (p. 8), amount not stated; the decision does not say the appellant had counsel.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2854/1786868162460.pdf · p. 8

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The judgment criticises the missing verification of citations but imposes no admonishment or sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2559/Sarson_v_Fire_and_Rescue_NSW_No_2_2026_NSWIRComm_10 · orders (NSWIRComm 1043), see informe

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The claim is struck and the plaintiff pays ILS 6,000 to the defendant and ILS 2,000 to the State Treasury (the upstream 'Motion dismissed' and 'fine' misdescribe it).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/647/shenaar.pdf · Shenaar decision (4 pp.), see informe

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The Tribunal sets the decision aside in part and remits the uplift and input tax credits; the upstream outcome is empty.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1325/Smith_and_Commissioner_of_Taxation_Australia_12_Jan · see informe

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The panel only 'strongly encourages' verification (para 87), no formal warning; the representative is 'not legally trained' (para 87).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2164/A2500568-Re-2026-CanLII-47821-BC-WCAT.pdf · WCAT A2500568, paras 85-87

Party(ies)

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The panel only 'strongly encourages' verification (para 87), no formal warning; the representative is 'not legally trained' (para 87).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2164/A2500568-Re-2026-CanLII-47821-BC-WCAT.pdf · WCAT A2500568, paras 85-87

Hallucination Items

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The Supreme Court of Victoria says AI use likely contributed to the misuse of authorities (fn 38); judicial review refused; no sanction. The upstream outcome and items are empty.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2982/WEQ_v_Medical_Board_of_Australia_2026_VSC_463_23_Ju · WEQ v Medical Board [2026] VSC 463, fn 38

Outcome

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The Supreme Court of Victoria says AI use likely contributed to the misuse of authorities (fn 38); judicial review refused; no sanction. The upstream outcome and items are empty.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2982/WEQ_v_Medical_Board_of_Australia_2026_VSC_463_23_Ju · WEQ v Medical Board [2026] VSC 463, fn 38

Hallucination Items

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The company was represented by its director and a Mr Ahmed with no statement that they are lawyers; the Tribunal does not say the ~70 cases do not exist.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2563/ZBDD_AND_Commissioner_of_Taxation_Taxation_2026_ART · ZBDD [2026] ARTA 553

Party(ies)

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: The company was represented by its director and a Mr Ahmed with no statement that they are lawyers; the Tribunal does not say the ~70 cases do not exist.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2563/ZBDD_AND_Commissioner_of_Taxation_Taxation_2026_ART · ZBDD [2026] ARTA 553

Outcome

BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (Blanes v Stellers Jay Academy, 28 May 2026), paras 8-9: 'I find these authorities are likely hallucinations'; rule 10.5 allows the tribunal to consider AI use in ordering expenses, but 'SJA did not claim dispute-related expenses, so I do not need to consider this issue further'. No warning to Ms Blanes. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the decision.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2219/Blanes-v.-Stellers-Jay-Academy-Inc.-2026-BCCRT-836. · Reasons, paras 8-9

Outcome

BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, Blaser v. Campbell (15 Jul 2025): para. 16 says the tribunal could not locate two cases cited by the respondent and finds it likely they are hallucinations, adding that courts and earlier tribunal decisions have discussed the risk of relying on generative AI. That is a general statement, not addressed to Ms Campbell as a caution; the orders (paras. 28 to 30) are a small damages award on the merits and dismissal of the claim against the realtor, with nothing for the citations. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the decision (read in full for warn, caution, admonish, sanction, consequence).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/590/Blaser_v._Campbell_Canada_15_July_2025.pdf · Reasons, para. 16 (page 4) and Orders, paras. 28 to 31 (page 7)

Outcome

W.D. Va. (Bailey v. Ritchie, 27 Jan 2026), n.7: the state court 'suspected the use of generative artificial intelligence based on citations to nonexistent authorities' which 'does not constitute a procedural due process violation, but rather reflects a serious concern that AI jeopardizes the integrity of the judicial system'; complaint dismissed on screening. No warning or sanction aimed at Bailey. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the order.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1411/BRIAN_BAILEY_Plaintiff_v_HON_CLARK_A_RITCHIE_et_al_ · footnote 7

Monetary Penalty

The GBP 100,000 is the summary assessment of costs on the applicants' two Civil Restraint Order applications (GBP 50,000 per schedule, para 102), awarded for Dr Wright's abusive litigation conduct (lies, forgeries, vexatious proceedings); the AI-generated documents are one factor among many, not the ground of the figure, so it is not a sanction for AI use and the cell is cleared. The outcome text 'Costs awarded to applicants' stays accurate. The tool label stays 'implied': the judge only says the documents have 'hallmarks of ChatGPT or a similar AI engine' (para 44).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/449/Crypto_Open_Patent_Alliance_v._Wright_UK_May_12_2025 · paras 36, 44 (pp. 8-9) and paras 101-102 (p. 22)

Outcome

D. Md. 1:25-cv-00855-JRR, Doc. 68 (memorandum opinion and order, 30 Apr 2026), section IV: the court says it will not issue a Rule 11 show cause order for the citation to a hallucinated case, but that Plaintiff is strongly cautioned that similar conduct may lead it to do so. No show cause order was issued, so the upstream 'Order to Show Cause' describes a possibility the court declined; the court's own act is a caution (the 26 Aug 2026 order in the same case refers back to it as a prior caution).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2072/Johnson_v._Nationstar_USA_30_APril_2026.pdf · Doc. 68, section IV (Admonition concerning citation of hallucinated authority), page 9: "In this discrete instance, the court will not issue a Rule 11 show cause order as to Plaintiff's citation to a hallucinated case. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is strongly cautioned: should he engage in similar conduct in the future ... the court may exercise its discretion to issue an order to show cause why he should not face sanctions under Rule 11."

Outcome

M.D. Fla. Order granting in part the motion to dismiss (8:25-cv-2877-TPB-SPF), footnote 2: 'Hallucinated cases are common in filings generated by artificial intelligence, but the use of artificial intelligence in these circumstances would not excuse Plaintiffs' citation to nonexistent cases. Any party filing a document with a federal court has an obligation to ensure the veracity of its filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).' A statement of the general duty, no warn/caution/admonish language and no consequence ordered; the case is dismissed on its merits. Borderline: a reader could take the duty statement as a caution; nothing is aimed at Plaintiffs as a warning.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2530/Edwards__Desire_v._de_Cubas_USA_1_July_2026.pdf · footnote 2 and the dispositive paragraphs

Outcome

E.D. Va. memorandum opinion (Westlaw slip copy): n.6 says Erickson's liberal construction predates AI drafting tools and that the inaccurate citations suggest Plaintiff used AI 'to draft some, if not all' of the pleadings, adding that the analysis does not turn on it; the opinion contains no warning, caution, admonition or sanction aimed at Plaintiff (read in full-text search for warn/caution/admonish/sanction) and ends by granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Upstream 'Warning' is the aggregator's reading of the 'time may be near for an exception' remark, which is a suggestion about the rule, not a warning.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/803/ERIC_V_MITCHEL_II_Plaintiff_v_STELLANTIS_FINANCIAL_S · n.6 and the conclusion (grant of the Motion to Dismiss)

Outcome

Federal Court of Australia (Gussen v Swinburne, 8 May 2026), para 48: citations 'conceded were hallucinations produced by generative artificial intelligence. The provision of false citations to the Court is to be deprecated and in a different matter, could well have led to costs consequences (at least) for Dr Gussen.' No caution or consequence directed at him in this matter. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the judgment.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2556/Gussen_v_Swinburne_University_of_Technology_2026_FC · para 48

Outcome

FedCFamC2G (Hugo v Affinity Education Group, 18 Sep 2025), paras 69-70: 'It is clear that Ms Hugo's submissions refer to and cite non-existent authorities. That is a serious issue, including for a self-represented party', followed by Finch v The Heat Group and general remarks that the court has emphasised the cautions required in the use of AI; no warning or consequence is directed at Ms Hugo and security for costs is declined. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the judgment.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/818/Hugo_v_Affinity_Education_Group_Pty_Ltd_2025_FedCFam · paras 69-71 (security for costs)

Outcome

Consejo Superior Notarial (Costa Rica), Resolucion 416177, expediente 224980 (recurso de reconsideracion): the Considerando says the notary's references are 'inconducentes' with 'aparente soporte juridico inexistente o indebidamente utilizado', which 'evidencia una falta de los deberes minimos de diligencia, probidad y veracidad'; the Por tanto only declares the reconsideration 'sin lugar' and confirms resolution 408717 (an AML sworn-declaration proceeding). It contains no apercibimiento/advertencia for future filings and imposes nothing for the references themselves. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the text.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2461/Resoluci%C3%B3n_416177_Carlos_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Paniag · Considerando on the grounds of the appeal and the Por tanto

Outcome

Colo. Ct. App. In re Marriage of Haibt (10 Jul 2025), paras 66-71: frivolous-appeal finding on three grounds, the nonexistent Kendall v. Kendall among them, with 'Cf. Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone ... (parties to any action in this court are warned against filings that contain "hallucinations")' as a bare citation; fees are remanded for the trial court to first assess whether husband knew or should have known the appeal was frivolous. The court issues no warning to the husband itself, so upstream 'Warning' misdescribes the outcome.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/646/2025-24ca1113.pdf · paras 66-71 (II.F, Appellate Attorney Fees)

Outcome

The district court says it is disinclined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs for the improper citations after they corrected their filing, though they should review and abide by Rule 11(b) in future filings. That is a warning without a sanction; the upstream cell says only 'Warning'.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1062/Mattson__Dostal_v._Rosebud_USA_17_November_2025.pdf · D.S.D. No. 3:25-cv-03008-RAL, Doc. 42 (Opinion and Order, 17 Nov 2025), section VIII, pages 47 to 48 (PDF page 48): "this Court is disinclined to sanction these pro se Plaintiffs for improper citations, though they should review and abide by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) for future filings"

Outcome

Administrative Review Tribunal (MFRD and NDIA, 26 Aug 2026), paras 125-127: 'it would clearly appear that as a person without legal qualifications he understandably accepted what was produced by AI without making further inquiry. In those circumstances, I will not dwell further on this matter'; two observations follow (illustration of the practice-direction problem; fictitious authorities infect the submission). No warning or consequence directed at the applicant. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the reasons.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2987/MFRD_and_National_Disability_Insurance_Agency_NDIS_ · Reasons, paras 121-127

Outcome

Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist., Munoz v. Lopez (25 Sep 2025): the opinion recites that Munoz 'further notes' the non-existent legal authorities, holds the appellants' arguments forfeited, and states 'In light of our conclusion, we need not address Munoz's request for the imposition of sanctions on the Lopezes'; it contains no warning or caution of its own. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the opinion.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/837/Munoz_v._Lopez_USA_29_September_2025.pdf · the opinion's discussion of forfeiture and the closing paragraph on sanctions

Monetary Penalty

The decision orders Mr. Nady to pay costs of CAD 12,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis (paras 44-47, p. 11), raised in part because of the AI-generated factum (para 25, he 'admitted that he had used artificial intelligence') but also for irregularities of the appeal, so the figure cannot be separated into an AI part; the upstream '1 CAD' has no basis in the decision. Cell cleared; outcome 'AI misuse increasing adverse costs award' stays accurate.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2541/Nady-v.-Al-Sadi-2026-ONSC-3760.pdf · 2026 ONSC 3760, paras 25, 29 and 44-47 (PDF pp. 6-7, 11)

Outcome

W.D. Ark. Order of 11 Aug 2026 (5:26-CV-05085-DCF, Doc. 190): after a show-cause order the Court 'will IMPOSE SANCTIONS upon Plaintiff', citing reliance on AI producing fabricated caselaw, and orders that 'the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to accept no further pleadings or motions from Plaintiff without prior approval'; it also states 'Plaintiff is warned that further attempts to file frivolous pleadings will result in further sanctions'. A filing restriction is a sanction, not only a warning, so upstream 'Warning' understates the outcome.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2840/Nesbitt_v._Transunion_USA_11_AUgust_2026.pdf · the Order's analysis and ORDERED paragraphs (pp. 2-4)

This record is no longer listed in the corpus (merged or removed); the entry is kept for the audit trail.

Outcome

Supreme Court of India, Deepak Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction, C.A. No. 12195/2025, 2026 INSC 1134, para 74 (PDF pp. 49-50): the respondents objected that the appellants' compilation was 'replete with AI generated non-existent judgments'; the Advocate-on-Record blamed the appellants, senior counsel took the blame; exemplary costs 'were proposed' but the order requiring them 'has been deleted by no order as to costs'. No warning is recorded in the judgment, so the upstream 'Warning (during hearing)' is not in the text; the summary is rebuilt because the stored one carried the 8 Dec 2025 hearing date. Model-assisted reading of a third-party copy of the Court's PDF (not human legal review).

Primary source: lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/sc-deepak-raheja-v-omkara-assets-ai-fake-judgments · para 74, PDF pp. 49-50 of 50

Outcome

Ontario Labour Relations Board decision (OLRB 0050-26-UR, 2026 CanLII 60837): paragraph 5 only reports Trillium's assertion that the applicant's case law 'does not appear to exist'; paragraphs 6-10 give the applicant until 17 June 2026 to explain which allegations support a prima facie case and note the objection to the amendment. The Board makes no finding on the citations and gives no warning, caution or sanction. Upstream 'Warning' has no support in the decision text.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2488/Otar-Bennett-v-Trillium-Health-Partners-2026-CanLII · paragraphs 5-10

Monetary Penalty

The district judge's memorandum opinion (Doc. 159) states the objection 'to the fine of $610 imposed under Rule 37(d)' and upholds it because Pamon 'failed to complete her discovery obligations'; the AI-related ruling is only a warning about AI use, held 'proper' because two Westlaw citations did not correspond to real cases. The USD 610 is a discovery sanction, so the monetary cell is cleared and the outcome describes the AI ruling. The magistrate judge's own order is not in the free record (RECAP docket 69042683: Doc. 149 is Pamon's objection, not the order; ECF 148 of 15 May 2026 has no text or PDF), so the USD 610 rests on Doc. 159 alone; checked 2026-10-25.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2699/Pamon_v._United_States_Postal_Service_et_al_USA_22_ · N.D. Tex. No. 3:24-CV-2061-X-BK, Doc. 159, pp. 2-3 (third objection, $610 under Rule 37(d); second objection, AI warning)

Outcome

The district judge's memorandum opinion (Doc. 159) states the objection 'to the fine of $610 imposed under Rule 37(d)' and upholds it because Pamon 'failed to complete her discovery obligations'; the AI-related ruling is only a warning about AI use, held 'proper' because two Westlaw citations did not correspond to real cases. The USD 610 is a discovery sanction, so the monetary cell is cleared and the outcome describes the AI ruling. The magistrate judge's own order is not in the free record (RECAP docket 69042683: Doc. 149 is Pamon's objection, not the order; ECF 148 of 15 May 2026 has no text or PDF), so the USD 610 rests on Doc. 159 alone; checked 2026-10-25.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2699/Pamon_v._United_States_Postal_Service_et_al_USA_22_ · N.D. Tex. No. 3:24-CV-2061-X-BK, Doc. 159, pp. 2-3 (third objection, $610 under Rule 37(d); second objection, AI warning)

Outcome

Arkansas Court of Appeals opinion, 2026 Ark. App. 205 (Westlaw 2026 WL 886645): the brief's authorities 'are not found' in any recognized database ('they are fictitious'); the court states filing fictitious citations is 'a flagrant violation of the duties of candor', that 'These significant violations of our rules mandate dismissal of this appeal', and the lead paragraph disposes 'we dismiss the appeal'. The text has no warn/caution/admonish language aimed at the appellant for the future; the consequence is the dismissal itself. Upstream 'Warning' misdescribes the disposition.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1894/Hrdlishcka_v._Bengston_USA_1_April_2026.pdf · the opinion's opening paragraph, the discussion of fictitious citations and Rule 11, and the disposition (Westlaw pp. 1-3)

Outcome

High Court (Chancery Division, ICC Judge) [2025] EWHC 2729 (Ch), paras. 37 to 40: the court accepts counsel's note that most cited authorities are fake or do not support the point, but says the opposing counsel did not ask it to investigate deliberate falsity, 'rightly in my view, and I make no criticism of her', and suspects ordinary internet research by an unrepresented party. The later passage (para. 42) on a possible finding of 'totally without merit' and a future civil restraint order concerns the application itself, not the citations. The decision does not mention AI. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the judgment.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/900/Sriram_v._Birtttain__Pantera_UK_22_October_2025.pdf · Paras. 37 to 42 (page 9): "I make no criticism of her. For what it is worth, I suspect, that, in common with many unrepresented parties, Malathi has resorted to research using the internet and has come up with false leads."

Outcome

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii (State v. Presti, 31 Aug 2026): 'this court could invoke HRAP Rules 30 and 51 to possibly sanction Presti. Nonetheless, we believe the better approach under the circumstances here is to resolve this case as any other'; arguments disregarded as waived, judgment affirmed. No warning or sanction is directed at him. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the opinion.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2997/State_v._Presti_USA_31_August_2026.pdf · Opinion, Discussion (citation to nonexistent authority)

Outcome

E.D.N.Y. 2:22-cv-02236, Report and Recommendation of 13 Jun 2025 (ECF 71), footnote 4 (page 5): the court could not locate Green v. John H. Streater, Jr., 666 F.2d 119; counsel Krupnick admitted fabricating it and called it a placeholder; the court calls that implausible and says it raises questions under Rule 11, but 'declines to recommend further action' because it recommends denying the motion to vacate. No warning, admonishment or sanction is addressed to counsel, so the upstream 'Warning' is not in the report. The 'Not stated' label that replaced it described an outcome the footnote does state. The opinion never mentions AI (the tool stays 'No tool named'). Later 2026 entries of the same docket (ECF 86, order of 28 Sep 2026) are not available on RECAP and were not read.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.478948/gov.uscourts.nyed.478948.71.0.pdf · ECF 71 (R&R, Locke M.J., 13 Jun 2025), footnote 4, page 5: "Although Krupnick's conduct raises questions of his adherence to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (as he himself concedes), given the Court's recommendation that Rutella's motion to vacate be denied, the Court declines to recommend further action with respect to Rutella's misleading submission."

Outcome

The court of appeals notes that Fitch's brief cites authority that does not exist or is unrelated, says it does not impose additional sanctions under Rule 809.83(2), and cautions him that obtaining the false citations from generative AI is not a defense. That is a warning without a further sanction; the upstream cell says only 'Warning'.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3168/Fitch_v._Educators_Credit_Union_USA_30-09-2026.pdf · Wis. Ct. App. No. 2025AP1239, footnote 3 (PDF page 4): "We do not impose additional sanctions under our authority pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.83(2), but we caution Fitch that it is not a defense if he obtained these false/incorrect citations from generative AI for legal research"

Outcome

California Court of Appeal opinion (Westlaw, 2026 WL 1803128 per the opinion's header): footnote 2 says Patterson's citations to nonexistent or inapposite cases and nonexistent quotations bear the hallmarks of AI hallucinations and states the general duty of pro se litigants to verify every citation, citing other cases in which attorneys were sanctioned and 'a pro se litigant has been warned' (Sheerer); it does not warn, caution or sanction Patterson. The Disposition affirms the judgment (appeal costs to Digital Federal) and directs the trial court to consider a vexatious-litigant declaration because of the frivolous nature of her litigation and her 16-year litigation history. Upstream 'Warning' reads the general footnote as a warning to her. Borderline: a reader could take the duty statement as a caution; no warn/caution/admonish language is aimed at her.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2472/Patterson_v._Digital_Federal_Credit_Union_USA_23_Ju · n.2 and the Disposition (Westlaw pp. 5-6)

Outcome

D. Del. Memorandum Order (Civil Action No. 25-989-GBW, D.I. 26 granted), footnote 10: the court identified a non-existent authority, Plaintiff conceded it was likely AI, the court 'has not considered any of Plaintiff's contentions, to the extent that they rely on fabricated authority, and will consider whether any other action is necessary'. No warn/caution/admonish/sanction is issued to Plaintiff; Count I is dismissed with prejudice and Counts II-IV without prejudice on the merits and jurisdiction. Upstream 'Warning' reads a reserved possibility of action as a warning.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2215/Williamson_v._Meyers__Equinix_USA_27_May_2026.pdf · footnote 10 and the Conclusion

Outcome

Pa. Super. 2026 PA Super 185 (No. 2781 EDA 2025): the court concludes the citations 'are hallucinated citations', notes generally that unverified generative AI use 'may lead to misstatements', and holds 'Appellant has misrepresented and/or misstated authority and fabricated authority. Accordingly, Appellant has also waived her claims by failing to cite to pertinent authority'. No warn/caution/admonish language and no sanction is ordered; the consequence is waiver and the order below stands. Upstream 'Warning' is not in the text.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2913/Kaspryak_Z._v._Stadarskyy_USA_19_August_2026.pdf · discussion of the hallucinated citations and footnote 4

Outcome

Para 40: the Associate Judge 'identified the possibility of sanctions or other consequences ... but imposed no such consequences'; para 41 reminds the applicant about miscited cases. Para 43: the applicant's motion to set aside her order is dismissed (not part of the derived outcome wording). Para 44 and order 2: 'fixed costs in the amount of $600, inclusive of disbursements and taxes' to the respondent, 'guided by Tariff B, Column 2': ordinary costs of the lost motion (complexity of the issues and self-represented status), not a penalty for the AI use. Per decision (b) the figure is stated in the outcome and kept out of the monetary cell; 'Warning' alone omitted the order.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1999/Arora-v_VTr5gyl.-Canadian-National-Railway-2026-Can · paras 17, 38, 40-41, 44 and order 2 (pp. 6, 14-17), 2026 CanLII 33472 (FC), T-977-25, Gleeson J., 15 April 2026

Monetary Penalty

Paras 15-16: both parties relied on a 'hallucinated version of CRTA section 92'; the tribunal says it need not answer 'arguments concocted by artificial intelligence that have no basis in law' and imposes nothing for it. Para 40: 'I find that $1,000 is appropriate compensation for AQ's time spent in this dispute, based primarily on the sheer volume of irrelevant evidence'; para 43: BW pays AQ CAD 6,000 in all (CAD 5,000 IIPA damages plus CAD 1,000 compensation for time). Neither figure is a sanction for the AI use; the cell is cleared and the outcome states the order.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/547/AQ_v._BW_Canada_4_July_2025.pdf · paras 15-16 (PDF pp. 4-5), 37-40 and 43 (PDF pp. 9-11), BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, 4 Jul 2025

Outcome

Paras 15-16: both parties relied on a 'hallucinated version of CRTA section 92'; the tribunal says it need not answer 'arguments concocted by artificial intelligence that have no basis in law' and imposes nothing for it. Para 40: 'I find that $1,000 is appropriate compensation for AQ's time spent in this dispute, based primarily on the sheer volume of irrelevant evidence'; para 43: BW pays AQ CAD 6,000 in all (CAD 5,000 IIPA damages plus CAD 1,000 compensation for time). Neither figure is a sanction for the AI use; the cell is cleared and the outcome states the order.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/547/AQ_v._BW_Canada_4_July_2025.pdf · paras 15-16 (PDF pp. 4-5), 37-40 and 43 (PDF pp. 9-11), BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, 4 Jul 2025

Hallucination Items

p. 1: 'We approve her self-imposed sanctions and issue this order of reprimand'; p. 2: the attorney ad litem 'immediately resigned from her position ... and self-reported to our Office of Professional Conduct' and the court finds she 'violated Rule 11'; p. 3: 'this written reprimand, McClain's immediate resignation, and her self-reporting to OPC constitute appropriate sanctions'. Nothing was dismissed and the court did not itself report her. The upstream outcome ('Report to Office of Professional Conduct and Counsel dismissal') is wrong. A written reprimand to a lawyer is recorded as a professional sanction elsewhere in the corpus ('Public reprimand' rows carry Yes), so Professional Sanction goes from No to Yes. Item 3 ('Outdated Advice: Repealed Law', a statute that had changed) is not in this order, which says only 'case law and statutes generated by artificial intelligence' (p. 1) and refers to the earlier order (2025 Ark. 217, not read); removed.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1458/Arkansas_DHS_v._April_Ward_USA_5_February_2026.pdf · pp. 1-3, Ark. Sup. Ct. No. CV-25-758, 2026 Ark. 17, per curiam of 5 February 2026

Outcome

p. 1: 'We approve her self-imposed sanctions and issue this order of reprimand'; p. 2: the attorney ad litem 'immediately resigned from her position ... and self-reported to our Office of Professional Conduct' and the court finds she 'violated Rule 11'; p. 3: 'this written reprimand, McClain's immediate resignation, and her self-reporting to OPC constitute appropriate sanctions'. Nothing was dismissed and the court did not itself report her. The upstream outcome ('Report to Office of Professional Conduct and Counsel dismissal') is wrong. A written reprimand to a lawyer is recorded as a professional sanction elsewhere in the corpus ('Public reprimand' rows carry Yes), so Professional Sanction goes from No to Yes. Item 3 ('Outdated Advice: Repealed Law', a statute that had changed) is not in this order, which says only 'case law and statutes generated by artificial intelligence' (p. 1) and refers to the earlier order (2025 Ark. 217, not read); removed.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1458/Arkansas_DHS_v._April_Ward_USA_5_February_2026.pdf · pp. 1-3, Ark. Sup. Ct. No. CV-25-758, 2026 Ark. 17, per curiam of 5 February 2026

Professional Sanction

p. 1: 'We approve her self-imposed sanctions and issue this order of reprimand'; p. 2: the attorney ad litem 'immediately resigned from her position ... and self-reported to our Office of Professional Conduct' and the court finds she 'violated Rule 11'; p. 3: 'this written reprimand, McClain's immediate resignation, and her self-reporting to OPC constitute appropriate sanctions'. Nothing was dismissed and the court did not itself report her. The upstream outcome ('Report to Office of Professional Conduct and Counsel dismissal') is wrong. A written reprimand to a lawyer is recorded as a professional sanction elsewhere in the corpus ('Public reprimand' rows carry Yes), so Professional Sanction goes from No to Yes. Item 3 ('Outdated Advice: Repealed Law', a statute that had changed) is not in this order, which says only 'case law and statutes generated by artificial intelligence' (p. 1) and refers to the earlier order (2025 Ark. 217, not read); removed.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1458/Arkansas_DHS_v._April_Ward_USA_5_February_2026.pdf · pp. 1-3, Ark. Sup. Ct. No. CV-25-758, 2026 Ark. 17, per curiam of 5 February 2026

Outcome

Small Claims Court, 2026 CanLII 48313 (released 4 May 2026): the court finds defence counsel's one-page 'Database Document' was incomplete and 'a completely unreliable source' (paras 62 to 72); some listed cases 'cannot be located (if they even exist)'. No sanction is imposed. The decision does not mention AI; the 'implied' tool label is the upstream database's classification and is kept as such.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2223/Yadav-v-Ahangama-2026-CanLII-48313-ON-SCSM.pdf · 2026 CanLII 48313 (ON SCSM), paras 62 to 73

Monetary Penalty

Para 26: 'at least 3 fake authorities: 2 non-existent cases and a non-existent regulation'. Para 27: 'I assess an additional $1,000 (not $2,000 as requested) per set of Defendants/Respondents', on top of costs of $10,989.99 and $11,087.15; para 37: for the third set (Soete and Elite) costs are $26,000 all-inclusive, which includes 'an additional $1,000 for the fake authorities'. Three sets, so CAD 3,000 attributable to the fake authorities; the upstream '1000 CAD' was one set only.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1437/Barrette_v._Wevers_Canada_8_December_2025.pdf · paras 26, 27 and 37, 2025 ABKB 723 (Mah J., Court of King's Bench of Alberta, 8 December 2025)

Outcome

Para 26: 'at least 3 fake authorities: 2 non-existent cases and a non-existent regulation'. Para 27: 'I assess an additional $1,000 (not $2,000 as requested) per set of Defendants/Respondents', on top of costs of $10,989.99 and $11,087.15; para 37: for the third set (Soete and Elite) costs are $26,000 all-inclusive, which includes 'an additional $1,000 for the fake authorities'. Three sets, so CAD 3,000 attributable to the fake authorities; the upstream '1000 CAD' was one set only.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1437/Barrette_v._Wevers_Canada_8_December_2025.pdf · paras 26, 27 and 37, 2025 ABKB 723 (Mah J., Court of King's Bench of Alberta, 8 December 2025)

Outcome

Appearances (p. 1): 'Carlos de Ibarrola, on behalf of BC Taco Restaurant Group Ltd.'; only the former employee has 'legal counsel' (Dale R. North). The decision never says the author of BC Taco's reply submissions is a lawyer, so 'Lawyer' has no basis and the corpus has no company or representative value; the cell is cleared. The upstream outcome is blank, but para 58 says 'I confirm the Determination' and paras 21 and 54 say the cases cited 'appear to be AI hallucinations' and were 'of no value in my decision'; para 23 only reminds parties to verify AI outputs. No sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1086/BC_Taco_Restaurant_Group_Canada_6_November_2025.pdf · p. 1 (appearances), paras 21-23, 54 and 58, 2025 BCEST 134 (CanLII), 6 Nov 2025

Party(ies)

Appearances (p. 1): 'Carlos de Ibarrola, on behalf of BC Taco Restaurant Group Ltd.'; only the former employee has 'legal counsel' (Dale R. North). The decision never says the author of BC Taco's reply submissions is a lawyer, so 'Lawyer' has no basis and the corpus has no company or representative value; the cell is cleared. The upstream outcome is blank, but para 58 says 'I confirm the Determination' and paras 21 and 54 say the cases cited 'appear to be AI hallucinations' and were 'of no value in my decision'; para 23 only reminds parties to verify AI outputs. No sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1086/BC_Taco_Restaurant_Group_Canada_6_November_2025.pdf · p. 1 (appearances), paras 21-23, 54 and 58, 2025 BCEST 134 (CanLII), 6 Nov 2025

Outcome

P. 11: the plaintiffs suggest monetary sanctions and 'The court disagrees'; 'an appropriate sanction would be for Mr. Crane to read all of the cases and authority cited in this opinion and then file a summary statement with the court certifying that he has done so within 30 days'. The upstream outcome says 'cited authorities', which could read as the authorities in the opposition brief; the court means those cited in its own opinion. The derived sanction_types for this row ('none-adjudicated') cannot be changed through the outcome text: reading-and-certifying orders are deliberately excluded from 'non-monetary' (lib/sanction-types.mjs).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1144/Black_Oak_Capital_v._Paul_Evans_USA_4_December_2025 · pp. 8-11, D. Utah No. 2:24-cv-00209-DBB, Doc. 83, Memorandum Decision and Order signed 4 December 2025 (Barlow J.)

Outcome

[2025] NSWDC 221, Gibson DCJ, order 1: the second defendant's motion for summary dismissal 'dismissed, with costs reserved to the trial judge'. The reasons say 'No costs orders have been made against them' and 'it is not to the credit of the second defendant that she put false AI-generated material before the court, and it must not happen again'. The motion refused is the defendant's own, so the upstream outcome read as a dismissal or monetary sanction for the AI use is not supported.

Primary source: www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19786d8efe68a18738382c63 · Decision and Orders (order 1), paras on Gen AI use ('I am satisfied that all of the judgments and rules ... were misstated, non-existent, or both, and that Gen AI had been used'), 'No costs orders have been made against them'

Outcome

The only mention of the false citations is footnote 4, which records the State's assertion that the brief cites three cases that do not exist, five others with misattributed facts and seven with quotations that do not appear, and that counsel acknowledged 'phantom cases' and incorrect citations in the reply brief. The opinion contains no warning, admonition or sanction (searched warn, caution, sanction): the disposition is 'AFFIRMED' (para 87). The upstream 'Warning' has no basis in this opinion.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1652/Brown_v._STA_USA_10_March_2026.pdf · DISPOSITION line, para 87 and footnote 4 (p. 13), Miss. Ct. App. No. 2024-KA-00489-COA, 10 March 2026

Monetary Penalty

Para 6: 'I reject the appeal and order the appellant to pay the respondents court expenses of ILS 5,000', with the appellant's agreement to the rejection (para 2) and balancing the respondents' request to strike the appeal at the threshold (para 3). Para 5: the 'alleged' use by the appellant's counsel of AI and citation of non-existent or wrong judgments is viewed gravely, but 'I did not find to award expenses against the appellant for this, nor, as a matter of grace, personal expenses against counsel', who took responsibility and apologised. So the ILS 5,000 are ordinary expenses on the appellant (a party, not counsel), expressly not for the AI use, and are removed from the monetary cell (same rule as the amount audit's 'figure_not_attributable_to_ai'); the upstream '5000 ' also had no currency.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/589/boker.pdf · paras 1-2, 5 and 6 (pp. 1-2), Tel Aviv-Jaffa Administrative Affairs Court, Admin. App. 10060-03-25, 2 July 2025; Hebrew, read without an official translation

Outcome

Para 6: 'I reject the appeal and order the appellant to pay the respondents court expenses of ILS 5,000', with the appellant's agreement to the rejection (para 2) and balancing the respondents' request to strike the appeal at the threshold (para 3). Para 5: the 'alleged' use by the appellant's counsel of AI and citation of non-existent or wrong judgments is viewed gravely, but 'I did not find to award expenses against the appellant for this, nor, as a matter of grace, personal expenses against counsel', who took responsibility and apologised. So the ILS 5,000 are ordinary expenses on the appellant (a party, not counsel), expressly not for the AI use, and are removed from the monetary cell (same rule as the amount audit's 'figure_not_attributable_to_ai'); the upstream '5000 ' also had no currency.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/589/boker.pdf · paras 1-2, 5 and 6 (pp. 1-2), Tel Aviv-Jaffa Administrative Affairs Court, Admin. App. 10060-03-25, 2 July 2025; Hebrew, read without an official translation

Outcome

Searched admonish, warn, sanction, caution, reprimand, Rule 11: no hits. The only AI remarks are p. 2 ('saturates his briefing with immaterial and misrepresented facts, apparently hallucinated by artificial intelligence') and p. 14 ('perhaps a result of his admitted use of artificial intelligence'), made to reject the plaintiff's pretext arguments. The court 'grants defendants' motion' (summary judgment on the Title VII claims) and 'An appropriate Order follows'. No admonishment or other measure.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2399/Gaddy_v._Wood_Brothers_Bar_USA_6_June_2026.pdf · pp. 2, 14 (Tr. of Oral Arg. 51:18-20), 15-16 and 21, E.D. Pa. 24-6529, Dkt 70, 9 June 2026

Outcome

Para 39: the appeals are 'so clearly without merit' and the conduct includes 'referring to AI-generated caselaw that does not exist'; para 48: 'I order that Ms. Chan post security for costs of the appeals in the amount of $10,000'; para 3: costs assessed 'today at $4,000, not payable forthwith'. Security for costs is a deposit, not a penalty for the AI use, so the monetary cell stays blank and the outcome states what was ordered.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1742/Chan-v.-British-Columbia-Workers-Compensation-Appea · paras 3, 39 and 48, 2025 BCCA 452 (Griffin J.A., in chambers, 28 November 2025)

Monetary Penalty

The only dollar figure is background on p. 3: 'Judge Huntsman then entered an order imposing sanctions. [ECF No. 101] ... Petitioner paid the $405 fine imposed on her'. That fine was imposed by the Magistrate Judge in an earlier order (ECF 101), not by this 24 Feb 2026 order, which strikes the petition and the pending motions under inherent authority ('better angels counsel against imposing more severe sanctions', p. 9) and grants leave to file an amended petition by 17 March 2026. The USD 405 is therefore removed from the monetary cell and stated in the outcome, as the earlier fine.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1566/Jackson_v._BOK_USA_24_February_2026.pdf · pp. 2-3 (background), p. 9 and p. 10 (conclusion, strikes), p. 11 (leave to amend), N.D. Okla. 4:25-cv-00297-SEH-SH, Doc. 114, 24 Feb 2026

Outcome

The only dollar figure is background on p. 3: 'Judge Huntsman then entered an order imposing sanctions. [ECF No. 101] ... Petitioner paid the $405 fine imposed on her'. That fine was imposed by the Magistrate Judge in an earlier order (ECF 101), not by this 24 Feb 2026 order, which strikes the petition and the pending motions under inherent authority ('better angels counsel against imposing more severe sanctions', p. 9) and grants leave to file an amended petition by 17 March 2026. The USD 405 is therefore removed from the monetary cell and stated in the outcome, as the earlier fine.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1566/Jackson_v._BOK_USA_24_February_2026.pdf · pp. 2-3 (background), p. 9 and p. 10 (conclusion, strikes), p. 11 (leave to amend), N.D. Okla. 4:25-cv-00297-SEH-SH, Doc. 114, 24 Feb 2026

Hallucination Items

p. 2: 'The authority "California Federal Bank v. Kwong (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1467, 1472" does not exist. The authority "Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab 231 Cal.App.3d at 1472-1473" was reported at 51 Cal.3d 991. The court will set an OSC re filing false pleadings with the court': the OSC is announced for the future, not issued in this order. The operative ruling is that the ex parte application for appointment of a receiver 'is GRANTED' (pp. 3-4). The third item (Misrepresented: Legal Norm) is not a false citation: the court only disagrees with defendants' one-action-rule argument citing Miller & Starr and CCP 564(d) (p. 3), and is removed; the second item said the court 'set an OSC', corrected to 'said it will set'.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/485/Churchill_Funding_v._732_Indiana_SC_Cal_USA_31_Octob · pp. 2-4, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 24SMCV03940, minute order of 31 Oct 2024 (Judge Mandel)

Outcome

p. 2: 'The authority "California Federal Bank v. Kwong (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1467, 1472" does not exist. The authority "Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab 231 Cal.App.3d at 1472-1473" was reported at 51 Cal.3d 991. The court will set an OSC re filing false pleadings with the court': the OSC is announced for the future, not issued in this order. The operative ruling is that the ex parte application for appointment of a receiver 'is GRANTED' (pp. 3-4). The third item (Misrepresented: Legal Norm) is not a false citation: the court only disagrees with defendants' one-action-rule argument citing Miller & Starr and CCP 564(d) (p. 3), and is removed; the second item said the court 'set an OSC', corrected to 'said it will set'.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/485/Churchill_Funding_v._732_Indiana_SC_Cal_USA_31_Octob · pp. 2-4, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 24SMCV03940, minute order of 31 Oct 2024 (Judge Mandel)

Hallucination Items

Para 26: the plaintiff's counsel based his claims on 11 judgments of which only 2 exist in the legal databases; asked, he replied on 27.10.2025 that an AI tool was used to write the claims (good-faith error). Para 60: the claim is dismissed at the threshold. Para 61: the plaintiff pays ILS 16,000 costs (8,000 to the State, 8,000 to defendant 2) and counsel pays ILS 4,000 personal costs to the State treasury for his conduct (paras 26-28). The upstream outcome had 'AI-generated materials disregarded' and 'Order to correct filings', neither of which appears; the 'invented docket string' understated 9 of 11 non-existent authorities. The ILS 4,000 monetary cell is right and is kept (the ILS 16,000 are the party's costs, not a sanction on counsel).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1014/cohen102.pdf · paras 26-28, 60, 61 (Jerusalem District Court, ת"א 50305-07-24, 12 November 2025); Hebrew, read without an official translation

Outcome

Para 26: the plaintiff's counsel based his claims on 11 judgments of which only 2 exist in the legal databases; asked, he replied on 27.10.2025 that an AI tool was used to write the claims (good-faith error). Para 60: the claim is dismissed at the threshold. Para 61: the plaintiff pays ILS 16,000 costs (8,000 to the State, 8,000 to defendant 2) and counsel pays ILS 4,000 personal costs to the State treasury for his conduct (paras 26-28). The upstream outcome had 'AI-generated materials disregarded' and 'Order to correct filings', neither of which appears; the 'invented docket string' understated 9 of 11 non-existent authorities. The ILS 4,000 monetary cell is right and is kept (the ILS 16,000 are the party's costs, not a sanction on counsel).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1014/cohen102.pdf · paras 26-28, 60, 61 (Jerusalem District Court, ת"א 50305-07-24, 12 November 2025); Hebrew, read without an official translation

Outcome

Paras 15-18: 'we strike Cole's brief and dismiss his appeal' (Rule 341 violations, including the inaccurate citations of paras 11-12); 'Appeal dismissed.' 'Brief struck' omitted the dismissal of the appeal.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2758/Cole_v._Lee_2026_IL_App_1st_252223-U.pdf · paras 1, 11-12, 15 and 17-18, 2026 IL App (1st) 252223-U, order filed 30 July 2026

Hallucination Items

OLRB 0809-26-U (11 Jun 2026) only dismisses the application (para 5) because Vice-Chair Liznick's decision of 11 Dec 2025 (para 36, quoted in para 4) already prohibits new applications against the union and the Ministry without leave; the prohibition is not imposed here. The AI material is described as 'unintelligible artificial intelligence generated material' (para 2); the decision does not call it fabricated.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2444/Conrado-Poblete-v-Ontario-Public-Service-Employees- · 2026 CanLII 59602 (ON LRB), paras 2 to 5

Outcome

OLRB 0809-26-U (11 Jun 2026) only dismisses the application (para 5) because Vice-Chair Liznick's decision of 11 Dec 2025 (para 36, quoted in para 4) already prohibits new applications against the union and the Ministry without leave; the prohibition is not imposed here. The AI material is described as 'unintelligible artificial intelligence generated material' (para 2); the decision does not call it fabricated.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2444/Conrado-Poblete-v-Ontario-Public-Service-Employees- · 2026 CanLII 59602 (ON LRB), paras 2 to 5

Outcome

Cal. Ct. App. A174647, Filed 7/10/26, Disposition: 'Attorney Carlton Floyd is directed to pay $1,500 in sanctions, payable to the clerk of this court' and 'Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6086.7, subdivision (a)(3), the clerk of the court is ordered to forward a copy of this opinion to the State Bar'. Upstream omitted the State Bar notification.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2595/Del_Baggio_v._Bansen_USA_10_July_2026.pdf · Disposition

Hallucination Items

The court says only that 'Robertson's citation is inaccurate' for Mickens v. 10th Jud. Dist. Ct., 460 F. App'x 728 (9th Cir. 2011): the related decisions are Eleventh Circuit cases on different issues. It calls Aguirre v. Reese and McNair v. Everly nonexistent. The Mickens item was tagged 'Fabricated'; it is 'Misrepresented'. The registry source is a blog post; the order itself is the primary source.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.381801/gov.uscourts.mied.381801.74.0.pdf · pp. 11-13, ECF 74, E.D. Mich. No. 24-cv-13435, order dated 25 September 2025 (Magistrate Judge Stafford)

Monetary Penalty

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirms and says costs on appeal are paid by the appellant (routine, not a sanction). It does not rule on 72 Barrow's sanctions motion under Rules 1-341 and 8-504: 'On remand, the circuit court may entertain a motion under Rule 1-341(a)'. The upstream '1 USD' placeholder is removed; the earlier order striking large portions of the briefs is in footnote 1.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2896/Eyong_v_72_Barrow_St_Realty_Corp_USA_11_August_2026 · 2026 WL 2321382 (Md. App. Ct. 11 Aug 2026), text before the judgment line and footnote 1

Outcome

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirms and says costs on appeal are paid by the appellant (routine, not a sanction). It does not rule on 72 Barrow's sanctions motion under Rules 1-341 and 8-504: 'On remand, the circuit court may entertain a motion under Rule 1-341(a)'. The upstream '1 USD' placeholder is removed; the earlier order striking large portions of the briefs is in footnote 1.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2896/Eyong_v_72_Barrow_St_Realty_Corp_USA_11_August_2026 · 2026 WL 2321382 (Md. App. Ct. 11 Aug 2026), text before the judgment line and footnote 1

Outcome

Pp. 4-5 and 7: sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) are granted against plaintiff's counsel because he 'violated his duty of candor' (settlement check) and the complaint is 'malicious and aimed at embarrassing and harassing Defendants'; he owes the defendants 'their legal fees incurred in filing this motion and opposing Plaintiff's cross motion', amount to be set on a fee application within 14 days (no figure yet). Pp. 5-7: separately, because of the false citations, counsel must within five days state whether he used AI and explain the non-existent citations. The upstream 'Costs Order; Disclosure Obligations' did not say that the fee sanction is not for the citations.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/827/Original_Source_Image.pdf · pp. 4-7, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Part 33M (Rosado J.), Index 152088/2025, Decision + Order filed 15 September 2025

Hallucination Items

[2026] NSWSC 373, Peden J, par. 65(5): 'The only evidence of the Fund's lending policies were created after the litigation commenced and were ostensibly created by Artificial Intelligence.' Upstream called them AI-generated ex post fabrications relied on as evidence, a stronger reading than the court's.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2560/Garan_Holdings_Pty_Ltd_v_Stonepoint_Capital_Managem · paras 16 and 65(5)

Party(ies)

[2026] NSWLEC 81, Beasley J, par. 13: paragraphs 35-36 of the developer's solicitor's affidavit refer to third-party objections that 'raised the possibility that generative artificial intelligence had been used to draft part of those objections'; the court does not say who drafted them or treat anyone as a litigant. 'Pro Se Litigant' is unsupported, so the party is left blank.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2549/Helm_No._21_Pty_Limited_v_Mosman_Municipal_Council_ · para 13

Outcome

[2025] FedCFamC1A 163: orders reject the appeal and make no costs or sanction order; paras 5-9 record that the citations 'cannot be located', that the appellant 'confirmed that he had indeed deployed AI' and that the court 'endorse[s] the cautions' in Ayinde. There is no formal warning in the operative orders, so upstream 'Warning' is a generous reading.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/817/Helmold__Mariya_No_2_2025_FedCFamC1A_163_12_Septembe · paras 1, 5-9, 50 and the orders

This record is no longer listed in the corpus (merged or removed); the entry is kept for the audit trail.

Outcome

The memorandum opinion (N.D. Ohio 1:25-cv-1057, Doc. 81, 25 Mar 2026) dismisses under Rule 41(b) because 'Lu failed to respond to the Show Cause Order' about a missed status conference. The fake cases appear only in the background section ('Lu then filed ... a brief which contained numerous fake cases ... Lu apologized and withdrew or corrected his filings, Doc. 47'); the four-factor analysis rests on delay and failure to participate. Upstream 'Factor in dismissing the case with prejudice' therefore overstates the link.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1830/LU_v._Capital_One_USA_25_March_2025.pdf · Doc. 81 pp. 1-3 (background, Doc. 39/43/47), pp. 8-10 (Rule 41(b) factors, conclusion 'dismissed, with prejudice')

Outcome

The AI challenge to the expert is rejected as raised for the first time in reply ('Defendants argue for the first time in their reply') and because 'Mere suspicion is not enough to exclude'; the expert admits using ChatGPT among other engines. But the motion to exclude is 'granted in part and denied in part': the expert 'may not opine' on two causation points (the cause of the catheter's surface cracking and of Patient 1's infection and biofilm), for reasons that are not about AI. 'No exclusion of Expert Report' omitted that partial exclusion. No sanction or amount.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2846/IN_RE_Bard_Implanted_Port_Catheter_Products_Liabili · pp. 6-7 (section E) and the closing ruling, D. Ariz. MDL 3081, order dated 12 August 2026

Monetary Penalty

2026 TSPR 41 (AB-2025-0232): the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico only admonishes ('apercibir') the two lawyers and orders the complaint closed ('ordenamos el archivo de la Queja'). The USD 1,000 comes from the trial court: 'el TPI impuso una sanción total de $1,000 a las promovidas por causar dilaciones injustificadas', paid without delay (Resolution of 22 Aug 2025). The upstream cell puts it on the record of the court that decided this one; the placeholder is removed and the outcome says who imposed it.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2047/In_re_Mar%C3%ADa_V._IRIZARRY_CENTENO_USA_21_April_2 · Opinion pp. 1-2 (apercibir, archivo), p. 8 and the paragraph after 'dilaciones' (TPI sanction of $1,000 under Regla 9.3, satisfied), closing paragraphs ('ordenamos el archivo de la Queja')

Outcome

2026 TSPR 41 (AB-2025-0232): the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico only admonishes ('apercibir') the two lawyers and orders the complaint closed ('ordenamos el archivo de la Queja'). The USD 1,000 comes from the trial court: 'el TPI impuso una sanción total de $1,000 a las promovidas por causar dilaciones injustificadas', paid without delay (Resolution of 22 Aug 2025). The upstream cell puts it on the record of the court that decided this one; the placeholder is removed and the outcome says who imposed it.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2047/In_re_Mar%C3%ADa_V._IRIZARRY_CENTENO_USA_21_April_2 · Opinion pp. 1-2 (apercibir, archivo), p. 8 and the paragraph after 'dilaciones' (TPI sanction of $1,000 under Regla 9.3, satisfied), closing paragraphs ('ordenamos el archivo de la Queja')

Outcome

The document is only the one-page concurrence of Chief Justice Adams, not the panel's order. He writes 'separately to note' that the petition's attributions and quotations 'strongly appear to be AI-fabricated hallucinations' and states in general terms to counsel who appear before the Court that trusting AI without verification 'will require the Court to take the necessary corrective action'. That is one justice's general statement about future filings, not a warning issued to the relator or counsel and not an order; the panel's disposition is not in the document. The upstream 'Warning' presents it as the court's measure. (The summary text, which also attributes the statement to the court, is not a correctable column.)

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2050/IN_re_Paula_Miller_USA.pdf · p. 1 (Adams, C.J., concurring), 2026 WL 1137938, No. 01-26-00319-CV, opinion issued 23 April 2026

Outcome

[2025] NSWSC 1607, Black J: order 1 (Mr Smits indemnifies up to the fixed sum of $73,603) and order 2 (plaintiffs pay $122,673 exclusive of GST, less any amount recovered from Mr Smits). Para 43: the non-existent cases 'were likely generated by the use of artificial intelligence. However ... this matter seems to me to have no impact on whether a gross sum costs order should be made against Mr and Mrs Edmonds ... and little impact on whether a costs order should be made against Mr Smits. I also do not consider it to be necessary or desirable ... to refer the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner'. Upstream said the amount was not stated and that AI misuse was a factor; the monetary cell stays the costs-ordered sentinel because the figures are not attributable to the AI conduct alone (data/amount-audit.json, figure_not_attributable_to_ai).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1323/In_the_matter_of_Bayfoyle_Pty_Ltd_Australia_23_Dece · paras 26, 43, 49, 52 (orders 1 and 2)

Outcome

E.D. Mich. 1:26-cv-10137-PTM, ECF 17 (13 Jul 2026), Order: 'the Court imposes Rule 11 sanctions ... Rich is HEREBY ORDERED to complete the above-listed continuing education classes ... FURTHER ORDERED to review their pending cases'; 'sufficient to negate the need for monetary sanctions'. Upstream 'CLE' was derived as no sanction adjudicated. AI is only in footnote 1 (the firm occasionally uses AI to summarize records; not certain in this case).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2608/Farley_v_Social_Security_Commissioner_of_USA_13_Jul · Part III Order and footnote 1

Hallucination Items

Para 91: 'while Section 19 of the 1881 Act was repealed by the 2009 Act, that provision was subsequently reinstated by Section 1 of the ... 2013 Act'; para 92: even if wrong, the mortgage itself gives a contractual power of sale, so 'this argument is fallacious'. The upstream text says the court 'found this claim false', but the 2009 repeal is true; what fails is the conclusion. The court says it is 'highly likely' the defendants used a generative AI program or an unqualified adviser (para 86): inferred, not admitted. No sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/726/2024IEHC697.pdf · paras 85-92 (pp. 22-23), High Court of Ireland, [2024] IEHC 697, Nolan J., 10 December 2024

Party(ies)

The author of the submission is EXDROG sp. z o.o., a bidder (wykonawca) that the Izba orders excluded from the procurement; it is not an expert. The vocabulary of the corpus has no bidder or company party, so the cell is cleared instead of keeping 'Expert'.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2527/KIO_KIO_3335-25___KIO_3339-25_et_al.pdf · judgment (wyrok) of the Krajowa Izba Odwolawcza, Warsaw, 17 October 2025, point 4.2.1 of the operative part and pp. 33-34

Outcome

The order (Dkt. 54, S.D.N.Y. 25-CV-5947) adopts the R&R and dismisses Hill's complaint; its last paragraph orders lead counsel for the defendant Foundation to file a 28 U.S.C. 1746 declaration by 28 Sep 2026 on whether AI was used in Foundation's response and whether the quotations attributed to Piazza and the citation to Zhao came from unchecked AI use. It is a declaration order, not an order to show cause, and it does not concern the pro se plaintiff.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3133/Hill_v._Foundation_Media_USA_22_September_2026.pdf · Dkt. 54 (22 Sep 2026), p. 3, last paragraph before 'SO ORDERED'

Party(ies)

The order (Dkt. 54, S.D.N.Y. 25-CV-5947) adopts the R&R and dismisses Hill's complaint; its last paragraph orders lead counsel for the defendant Foundation to file a 28 U.S.C. 1746 declaration by 28 Sep 2026 on whether AI was used in Foundation's response and whether the quotations attributed to Piazza and the citation to Zhao came from unchecked AI use. It is a declaration order, not an order to show cause, and it does not concern the pro se plaintiff.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3133/Hill_v._Foundation_Media_USA_22_September_2026.pdf · Dkt. 54 (22 Sep 2026), p. 3, last paragraph before 'SO ORDERED'

Outcome

The citations were given by the chairperson of a disciplinary hearing (para 24 to 25), not by a judge. The Labour Court finds two cited authorities do not exist, but says the source 'has yet to be determined' and that the AI use is conditional ('If the Chairperson did, indeed, blindly rely on an AI assistant', para 28, para 33); it stays the hearing (para 39 to 40) and imposes no sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2674/Molawa_and_Others_v_Matjhabeng_Local_Municipality_a · Labour Court (Durban), handed down 13 Jul 2026, paras 24 to 40

Party(ies)

The citations were given by the chairperson of a disciplinary hearing (para 24 to 25), not by a judge. The Labour Court finds two cited authorities do not exist, but says the source 'has yet to be determined' and that the AI use is conditional ('If the Chairperson did, indeed, blindly rely on an AI assistant', para 28, para 33); it stays the hearing (para 39 to 40) and imposes no sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2674/Molawa_and_Others_v_Matjhabeng_Local_Municipality_a · Labour Court (Durban), handed down 13 Jul 2026, paras 24 to 40

Outcome

[2025] NSWCA 178, Bell CJ: the respondent Ms Costaras is 'Self-represented'; at the hearing: 'I did get the help of AI'; her list of authorities cited 'Tate v Ragg [2004] NSWCA 306 ... No such case exists'; summary: 'This case illustrates the need for judicial vigilance in the use of Generative AI, especially but not only by unrepresented litigants'. The AI user was the self-represented respondent, not a lawyer; no sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/654/May_v_Costaras_Australia_8_August_2025.pdf · paras 1-17 and catchwords

Party(ies)

[2025] NSWCA 178, Bell CJ: the respondent Ms Costaras is 'Self-represented'; at the hearing: 'I did get the help of AI'; her list of authorities cited 'Tate v Ragg [2004] NSWCA 306 ... No such case exists'; summary: 'This case illustrates the need for judicial vigilance in the use of Generative AI, especially but not only by unrepresented litigants'. The AI user was the self-represented respondent, not a lawyer; no sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/654/May_v_Costaras_Australia_8_August_2025.pdf · paras 1-17 and catchwords

Monetary Penalty

Para 57 finds the non-existent citations were more likely than not generated by the AI program the plaintiff said she used; paras 62-63 raise the costs percentage because she 'continued the same type of litigation conduct which caused the Defendant to incur unnecessary expenses' (not only the citations); para 65-66: 75% of the reasonable legal expenses of CAD 9,500 = CAD 7,125 'in costs of the September 22, 2025, motion to strike'. The figure rests on mixed causes and cannot be separated into an AI part, and the upstream '1 CAD' has no basis: cell cleared. Outcome 'Increased Costs Award' stays (it is accurate).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2095/Mazac-v.-Muise-2026-NSSC-138.pdf · paras 50-66 (PDF pp. 10-12), 2026 NSSC 138

Outcome

The upstream 'Orde to Explain' describes the earlier 4 March 2026 order (DE 123) listing eight problematic citations, not this decision. This decision says counsel 'admitted that he used AI to write the special motion to dismiss', that the court 'will consider the defendant's motion to dismiss without the AI generated portions', and ends 'this court cannot find that the arguments were frivolous ... The motion to dismiss is denied.' No sanction or fee award.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1958/Hussain_v._Mansoor_USA_31_March_2026.pdf · pp. 1 and last page, Conn. Super. Ct. (J.D. Tolland), memorandum of decision of 31 March 2026

Hallucination Items

Para 6: Mrs Archer 'sought permission to be represented by her husband', permission was granted and he represented her throughout, so the AI user is her lay representative, not a self-represented party; the corpus has no lay-representative value, so the cell is cleared. Para 8: he cited cases in closing submissions, 'I formed the impression that he may have used artificial intelligence', he said it was so, and the Deputy President would 'disregard the cases for which he had been unable to find citations or links'. The decision never says the cases were fabricated or non-existent, only that some could not be traced to a citation or link.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1324/Mrs_Sandra_Archer_v_GTC_Contracting_Pty__Australia_ · paras 6 and 8, [2025] FWC 3836 (Deputy President Butler, 24 December 2025)

Party(ies)

Para 6: Mrs Archer 'sought permission to be represented by her husband', permission was granted and he represented her throughout, so the AI user is her lay representative, not a self-represented party; the corpus has no lay-representative value, so the cell is cleared. Para 8: he cited cases in closing submissions, 'I formed the impression that he may have used artificial intelligence', he said it was so, and the Deputy President would 'disregard the cases for which he had been unable to find citations or links'. The decision never says the cases were fabricated or non-existent, only that some could not be traced to a citation or link.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1324/Mrs_Sandra_Archer_v_GTC_Contracting_Pty__Australia_ · paras 6 and 8, [2025] FWC 3836 (Deputy President Butler, 24 December 2025)

Monetary Penalty

The order orders Massar Briggs to pay the respondents' costs personally on an indemnity basis, 'forthwith upon their being taxed or agreed': no figure is stated, so the upstream '1 AUD' placeholder is removed. The court declines to refer the solicitors to the Victorian Legal Services Board (paras 14 to 15), so no referral is recorded.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/533/Murray_v._Victoria_2_July_2025_Australia.docx · [2025] FCA 731, Murphy J, orders and paras 14 to 16 (referral declined, costs under s 85A(2) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)); cover page: date of judgment 22 April 2025, date of publication of reasons 2 July 2025

Outcome

The order orders Massar Briggs to pay the respondents' costs personally on an indemnity basis, 'forthwith upon their being taxed or agreed': no figure is stated, so the upstream '1 AUD' placeholder is removed. The court declines to refer the solicitors to the Victorian Legal Services Board (paras 14 to 15), so no referral is recorded.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/533/Murray_v._Victoria_2_July_2025_Australia.docx · [2025] FCA 731, Murphy J, orders and paras 14 to 16 (referral declined, costs under s 85A(2) Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)); cover page: date of judgment 22 April 2025, date of publication of reasons 2 July 2025

Hallucination Items

This order grants Hill's motion to stay the case pending his interlocutory appeal because the court 'lacks jurisdiction over a case once it has been appealed' (p. 1); the stay is not a sanction. The sanction is the earlier ruling sustaining Hill's qualified immunity defence, which this order recalls: it 'was issued largely as a sanction for plaintiff having fabricated authorities' (p. 5) and 'was, in fact, intended partially as a sanction' (p. 7); that earlier order is not in the document read and its date is not stated. Items 1 (Hill allegedly telling a judge the student was 'flipping tables', p. 9) and 3 (Hill's mischaracterisation of the prior order, p. 1) concern the defendant, not the plaintiff's citations, and are removed; item 2 is kept, reworded to what the order says.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/338/Newbern_v._Desoto_ND_Mississippi_USA_May_12_2025.pdf · pp. 1, 4-7 and 12, N.D. Miss. No. 3:24-CV-283-MPM-RP, Doc. 123, order of 12 May 2025 (Mills J.)

Outcome

This order grants Hill's motion to stay the case pending his interlocutory appeal because the court 'lacks jurisdiction over a case once it has been appealed' (p. 1); the stay is not a sanction. The sanction is the earlier ruling sustaining Hill's qualified immunity defence, which this order recalls: it 'was issued largely as a sanction for plaintiff having fabricated authorities' (p. 5) and 'was, in fact, intended partially as a sanction' (p. 7); that earlier order is not in the document read and its date is not stated. Items 1 (Hill allegedly telling a judge the student was 'flipping tables', p. 9) and 3 (Hill's mischaracterisation of the prior order, p. 1) concern the defendant, not the plaintiff's citations, and are removed; item 2 is kept, reworded to what the order says.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/338/Newbern_v._Desoto_ND_Mississippi_USA_May_12_2025.pdf · pp. 1, 4-7 and 12, N.D. Miss. No. 3:24-CV-283-MPM-RP, Doc. 123, order of 12 May 2025 (Mills J.)

Outcome

Para 13: 'I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant attorney fees of NIS 600' for the part of the motion (clarification questions) that was sent for an answer. That is a fee on the party for answering part of a motion, not a sanction for the citations and not on counsel; it is stated in the outcome and kept out of the monetary cell (same rule as the amount audit's 'figure_not_attributable_to_ai'). Para 10 sends the matter to the Legal Department of the Court Administration (kept).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/463/Nitzan_v._Adar_BaEmakim_Properties_Ltd_Israel_August · paras 10 and 13 (Nof HaGalil-Nazareth Magistrates Court, ת"א 6701-04-22, 13 August 2024); Hebrew, read without an official translation

Monetary Penalty

Order 1: the applicants pay the respondent's costs 'fixed in the sum of $10,100.00' under sch 3 cl 16(2) Building Act 1993; para 227 gives the same sum as the result of assessing the respondent's invoices. The AI discussion (paras 77-79) is an observation about the applicants' wrong citations, and no reasoning in the costs part (paras 80 ff.) ties the figure to it. The '1 AUD' placeholder has no basis in the document; the AUD 10,100 are costs of the proceeding, not a sanction for the AI use, so the cell is cleared. The upstream outcome 'Taken into account for adverse Cost Order' is not supported by the costs reasoning either, but it is left (not a corrected figure; see report).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2553/OBryan__Anor_v_Strod60_Pty_Ltd_No_2_2026_VBAB_33_7_ · Determination and orders 1-2 (p. 2) and para 227 (p. 34), [2026] VBAB 33 (Building Appeals Board, 7 May 2026)

Hallucination Items

For each of the four decisions cited by the defendant the Senate says it cannot check the citation 'da es sich insoweit um ein Fehlzitat handelt', not retrievable at juris or beck-online under the stated date, file number and source; for the Koblenz one it speaks of an 'angebliche Entscheidung'. The Senate does not say the decisions are invented, only that the citation cannot be found. 'Fabricated' becomes 'Unverified'.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2928/55ea1bb2-0c67-4731-8e65-0d75ddb8ad0c_C3aj4xa.pdf · pp. 2-3 (reasons bb to dd), OLG Celle 5 U 1/25, Beschluss of 29 April 2025; German, read without an official translation

Hallucination Items

Para 23: Arjona v. Arjona exists ('Arjona says nothing of the sort, and did not involve an order of protection or domestic violence'; the cited memorandum decision 'has been vacated'): the court does not call it non-existent. The item is 'Misrepresented', not 'Fabricated'. The other three items are supported (paras 24-26).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1134/Pineda_v._Campos_USA_December_2025.pdf · para 23 (pp. 7), Arizona Court of Appeals Div. One, 1 CA-CV 24-0912 FC, memorandum decision filed 7 Aug 2025

Monetary Penalty

Para 26: the application for interim relief is denied because the applicant showed no right, no balance of convenience and, given the misleading presentation and the invented authorities, did not come with clean hands. Para 27: costs because 'the applicant did not carry the burden to prove anything in his application': ILS 7,000 to respondent 1, and ILS 1,000 to each of respondents 2 and 3 (ILS 9,000 in all, not the 8,000 of the upstream cell) because the interim relief was in the end not aimed at them. These are costs of losing the application, not a penalty for the AI use; the cell is cleared and the outcome states the costs.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1862/ploni115.pdf · paras 16-17, 26-27 (pp. 4-8), Regional Labour Court Beer Sheva, Sa"sh 73945-07-25, 17 Aug 2025; Hebrew, read without an official translation

Outcome

Para 26: the application for interim relief is denied because the applicant showed no right, no balance of convenience and, given the misleading presentation and the invented authorities, did not come with clean hands. Para 27: costs because 'the applicant did not carry the burden to prove anything in his application': ILS 7,000 to respondent 1, and ILS 1,000 to each of respondents 2 and 3 (ILS 9,000 in all, not the 8,000 of the upstream cell) because the interim relief was in the end not aimed at them. These are costs of losing the application, not a penalty for the AI use; the cell is cleared and the outcome states the costs.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1862/ploni115.pdf · paras 16-17, 26-27 (pp. 4-8), Regional Labour Court Beer Sheva, Sa"sh 73945-07-25, 17 Aug 2025; Hebrew, read without an official translation

Outcome

Para 25: the court lists the tools available against a misleading pleading (including personal costs on counsel) and says that, this being a first case of its kind, 'far beyond the letter of the law' it did not find fit to use any of them, while future courts should use their powers in similar cases. Para 27: 'the petition is therefore dismissed'; a copy of the judgment goes to the Courts Administrator. No costs or fine were imposed, so the 'monetary' type and the 'warning re: costs' were wrong.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/235/Anonymous_v._Sharia_Court_Supreme_Court_of_Israel_Ja · paras 25-27 (pp. 16-17), HCJ 38379-12-24, 23 February 2025; Hebrew, read without an official translation

Outcome

The upstream outcome 'Relevant motions stricken' derives no sanction type because 'stricken' is not matched, although striking is exactly what the court did. pp. 26-27: monetary sanctions 'likely will not deter her' so 'the most appropriate remedy is to strike Lucas' filings' that are burdensome by volume and page limits, not cogent, and cite nonexistent or irrelevant cases; the six filings are ECF Nos. 7, 9, 11, 22, 88 and 115 (answer, motion to recuse, responses and oppositions, motion for reconsideration, reply) and p. 28 allows replacement filings. p. 29: 'were STRICKEN from the record'. The outcome is restated with the word 'struck' and the full list, so the derived sanction type is struck-filing.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/473/Powhatan_County_School_Board_v._Skinger_et_al_E.D._V · pp. 26-29, E.D. Va. 3:24cv874 (REP), Dkt 170, filed 2 June 2025

Hallucination Items

Searched warn, sanction, caution, admonish: no hits. The only passage on the citations (p. 3) says 'As identified by defendant, plaintiff has included numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both of her filed memorandums in opposition as well as in her proposed third memorandum', records that plaintiff 'relied on digital research tools' and that her pro se status 'does not excuse her from complying with ... Rule 11'; the motion for leave to amend the opposition is denied because it 'fails to establish good cause'. The conclusion (p. 10) grants defendant's motion to dismiss, denies the motion for leave and directs the clerk to close the case. No warning or any measure for the citations. The court does not list the citations or say it verified them, so the item is restated as what the order records.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1302/Montgomery_v._Acquisition_Experts_USA_13_January_20 · p. 3 (section I, discussion of the motion for leave to amend the opposition) and p. 10 (conclusion), E.D.N.C. 7:25-CV-726-BO-RN, Dkt 25, filed 13 Jan 2026

Outcome

Searched warn, sanction, caution, admonish: no hits. The only passage on the citations (p. 3) says 'As identified by defendant, plaintiff has included numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both of her filed memorandums in opposition as well as in her proposed third memorandum', records that plaintiff 'relied on digital research tools' and that her pro se status 'does not excuse her from complying with ... Rule 11'; the motion for leave to amend the opposition is denied because it 'fails to establish good cause'. The conclusion (p. 10) grants defendant's motion to dismiss, denies the motion for leave and directs the clerk to close the case. No warning or any measure for the citations. The court does not list the citations or say it verified them, so the item is restated as what the order records.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1302/Montgomery_v._Acquisition_Experts_USA_13_January_20 · p. 3 (section I, discussion of the motion for leave to amend the opposition) and p. 10 (conclusion), E.D.N.C. 7:25-CV-726-BO-RN, Dkt 25, filed 13 Jan 2026

Outcome

Cal. Ct. App. B346730, 2026 WL 539183 (2/26/2026, unpublished), Disposition: 'The appeal is dismissed. Focia to bear her own costs on appeal.' Each side bearing its own costs is not a monetary sanction; the court says the brief 'appears to have been prepared using generative artificial intelligence'.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1587/Samuel_K._v._Focia_USA_26_February_2026.pdf · Discussion and Disposition

Hallucination Items

LTB 2025 ONLTB 31233 (26 May 2025), paras 61 to 63: the document attributes the references to 'the Tenant' (a legal representative also appeared for the tenant) and does not say a lawyer cited them, so party is left blank. 'Fictitious' is the Board's general note on ChatGPT, not a finding on each case.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1718/Shakori-v-Tern-2025-ONLTB-31233-compressed.pdf · 2025 ONLTB 31233, paras 61 to 63

Outcome

LTB 2025 ONLTB 31233 (26 May 2025), paras 61 to 63: the document attributes the references to 'the Tenant' (a legal representative also appeared for the tenant) and does not say a lawyer cited them, so party is left blank. 'Fictitious' is the Board's general note on ChatGPT, not a finding on each case.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1718/Shakori-v-Tern-2025-ONLTB-31233-compressed.pdf · 2025 ONLTB 31233, paras 61 to 63

Party(ies)

LTB 2025 ONLTB 31233 (26 May 2025), paras 61 to 63: the document attributes the references to 'the Tenant' (a legal representative also appeared for the tenant) and does not say a lawyer cited them, so party is left blank. 'Fictitious' is the Board's general note on ChatGPT, not a finding on each case.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1718/Shakori-v-Tern-2025-ONLTB-31233-compressed.pdf · 2025 ONLTB 31233, paras 61 to 63

Outcome

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal 12884-2026, judgment dated 25 Aug 2026: par. 8.2 (allegation 2.1 proved; 2.2 proved for non-existent cases and incorrect propositions; AI use admitted), par. 28.16 ('the same sanction it would have imposed if either allegation had appeared before the Tribunal without the other'), par. 30 (struck off; no order as to costs). Upstream's 'struck off' reads as a strike-off for the AI conduct alone and, through the word 'struck', as a struck filing.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3023/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf · paras 7-8, 28.15-28.18, 30

Hallucination Items

Footnote 3: 'The Court again notes Plaintiff's apparent use of artificial intelligence to assist with drafting her briefing', recalls its 'no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions', says 'Plaintiff has made little to no effort to correct her false citations' and, given the dismissal of the amended complaint without leave to amend, 'declines to impose sanctions at this time'. The upstream row had the hallucination items, outcome and details blank. The order does not list the citations.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2782/Sorrentino_v._Fay_Servicing_LLC_et_al_USA_4_August_ · footnote 3 (p. 13), D. Conn., order of 4 August 2026

Outcome

Footnote 3: 'The Court again notes Plaintiff's apparent use of artificial intelligence to assist with drafting her briefing', recalls its 'no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions', says 'Plaintiff has made little to no effort to correct her false citations' and, given the dismissal of the amended complaint without leave to amend, 'declines to impose sanctions at this time'. The upstream row had the hallucination items, outcome and details blank. The order does not list the citations.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2782/Sorrentino_v._Fay_Servicing_LLC_et_al_USA_4_August_ · footnote 3 (p. 13), D. Conn., order of 4 August 2026

Hallucination Items

This order rules on the motions of Trans Union and Experian: denied in part and otherwise granted with prejudice (pp. 24-25), and imposes nothing on the plaintiff. The warning belongs to an earlier order (footnote 24 quotes R. Doc. 218: 'any future filing containing fabricated citations will result in sanctions against him personally') and the Rule 11 sanction of 11 May 2026 to R. Doc. 313 and 314, whose content and amount are not in this document. Footnote 24 does state that 'Plaintiff's improper use of AI and hallucinated citations continued' and that he 'again improperly used AI while preparing his filings', so the hallucination cell, blank upstream, is filled with that finding.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2190/Burches_v._Equifax_USA_20_May_2026.pdf · p. 3 (text and footnote 24) and pp. 24-25 (decretal paragraphs), E.D. La. 2:25-cv-00804-SM-MBN, R. Doc. 315, 20 May 2026

Outcome

This order rules on the motions of Trans Union and Experian: denied in part and otherwise granted with prejudice (pp. 24-25), and imposes nothing on the plaintiff. The warning belongs to an earlier order (footnote 24 quotes R. Doc. 218: 'any future filing containing fabricated citations will result in sanctions against him personally') and the Rule 11 sanction of 11 May 2026 to R. Doc. 313 and 314, whose content and amount are not in this document. Footnote 24 does state that 'Plaintiff's improper use of AI and hallucinated citations continued' and that he 'again improperly used AI while preparing his filings', so the hallucination cell, blank upstream, is filled with that finding.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2190/Burches_v._Equifax_USA_20_May_2026.pdf · p. 3 (text and footnote 24) and pp. 24-25 (decretal paragraphs), E.D. La. 2:25-cv-00804-SM-MBN, R. Doc. 315, 20 May 2026

Outcome

Sanctions list (p. 7): six hours of CLE, three on generative AI, for Attorney Gottlieb; 'Attorney Gottlieb and the law firm each shall donate $1000 to the CT Bar Institute' (USD 2,000 in total); a compliance report in six months; order posted on the court website with a courtesy copy to the Statewide Grievance Committee that is 'not a referral for further disciplinary action' (p. 8). The upstream USD 1,000 is per sanctioned party and there are two; and it is a donation to a legal-education institute, not a fine paid to the court. The outcome avoids the institute's name and the word referral because the derived sanction types would read them as a bar referral.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2723/Conn_Supreme_Court_AI_sanction_20260731.pdf · pp. 7-8, Conn. Sup. Ct. SC 21183/SC 21184, 355 Conn. 902, per curiam of 31 July 2026

Outcome

The opinion issues no warning and no formal sanction: it finds the original sentencing memorandum 'was filed in contravention of the Local Criminal Rules' because it contained 'at least 11 statements of law which were false' (Rule 3.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct) and records that 'The court allowed counsel to file a corrected brief, noting there are lessons to be learned' (p. 3). 'Warning' is not in the text.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1658/USA_v._Simmons_USA_10_March_2026.pdf · pp. 2-3 (parts A and B) of the memorandum opinion

Party(ies)

The court attributes the motions to the defendant himself ('Ponce's motions and replies', 'I caution him'); he is represented by counsel of record (Randall J. Roske) and the order does not say who drafted or signed the papers. 'Lawyer' is not supported, and 'Pro Se Litigant' does not fit a represented defendant; the corpus has no value for a represented party, so the cell is cleared (same treatment as the lay representative in Archer).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1589/USA_v._Ponce_USA_26_February_2026.pdf · footnote 1 (p. 2) and the attorney list (p. 1), D. Nev. No. 2:16-cr-00368-APG-PAL, 2026 WL 540272, 26 February 2026 (Gordon C.J.)

Hallucination Items

Item 5 of the upstream list mixes two things already covered. The reference 'to an appellate posting' where the database held only an operative part is the North-Western District decision of 11.03.2021 (case A56-12940/2020), already item 3. The West Siberian District decision of 24.03.2021 No. F04-1497/2021 (case A75-8937/2020) does exist in the case-file database (KAD); the court says only that its facts have 'absolutely nothing in common' with the dispute (insurance indemnity) and that it does not support the argument as stated (pp. 5-6). It was not fabricated, so the item is rewritten as Misrepresented.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2172/A27-7831-2025_20260514_Opredelenie.pdf · pp. 5-6 (reasoning), Russian, read without an official translation

Outcome

Iowa Ct. App. No. 25-0799 (19 Aug 2026): the court declines to sanction the pro se appellant for the nonexistent rule citation ('impossible to know whether a simple typo or unchecked AI'), but awards the appellee all her appellate attorney fees and assesses costs to him.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2918/Brett_Thomas_Wilkinson_v._Lacey_Schmelzer_USA_19_Au · Opinion introduction (p. 3) and 'Sanctions and appellate attorney fees' section

Monetary Penalty

The USD 100 is ordered 'as a sanction for Plaintiffs' unreasonable refusal to resolve this issue without Court intervention' (conclusion para 3; LCR 37(a)(2) conferral), not for the fabricated quotation: on that the court says it will 'give Plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt and assume these were honest, if careless, mistakes'. Cell cleared; the outcome states what the court ordered without a monetary-sanction label.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1036/MacNae_v._Arag_Insurance_Company_13_November_2025.p · Order on motion to strike, W.D. Wash., 13 Nov 2025: section on the fabricated Abatie quotation (PDF pp. 2-3), D.1 (PDF p. 4), conclusion paras (1)-(3)

Outcome

The USD 100 is ordered 'as a sanction for Plaintiffs' unreasonable refusal to resolve this issue without Court intervention' (conclusion para 3; LCR 37(a)(2) conferral), not for the fabricated quotation: on that the court says it will 'give Plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt and assume these were honest, if careless, mistakes'. Cell cleared; the outcome states what the court ordered without a monetary-sanction label.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1036/MacNae_v._Arag_Insurance_Company_13_November_2025.p · Order on motion to strike, W.D. Wash., 13 Nov 2025: section on the fabricated Abatie quotation (PDF pp. 2-3), D.1 (PDF p. 4), conclusion paras (1)-(3)

Outcome

Only the third question (First Amendment) is held not preserved, partly because 'part B of the argument section ... cites one non-existent case' (Drahus, footnote 2); the In re G.B.K. citation (footnote 1) sits in the sufficiency argument, which the court decides on the merits ('we address the merits of his sufficiency challenge below'). So 'the related claims were waived' was inexact. The judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3047/Woodley_K._v._Gottschall_J._USA_1_Septmber_2026.pdf · pp. 10-11 and footnotes 1 and 2, Pa. Super. Ct. No. 325 MDA 2026, filed 1 September 2026

Hallucination Items

The first two items are supported (Cummins-Allison cited to page *10 of an eight-page order; Fiber Sys. is six pages and was published 24 June 2009, not March 2009; 'The Court cautions Lup's counsel to cite-check his filings'). The third item ('Fabricated: Case Law ... citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist') comes from a Westlaw Editor's Note, not from a finding of the court: both orders exist, with a wrong page or date. Removed.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1370/Yue_v._Reaction_Labs_USA_20_January_2026.pdf · footnotes 6 and 10, W.D. Tex. No. 1:24-CV-1125-RP, 2026 WL 157144, signed 20 January 2026

Outcome

2024 BCSC 285, Masuhara J, par. 43: 'Additional effort and expense were incurred because of Ms. Ke's insertion of the fake cases. This additional effort and expense is to be borne personally by Ms. Ke', costs to be reviewed by the Registrar; special costs refused (no intent to deceive). Upstream 'Claimant awarded costs' omits the personal order, which is the AI-related sanction. No figure is stated, so the monetary cell stays blank.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/772/Zhang_v._Chen.pdf · paras 23, 32, 43

Hallucination Items

[2025] UKFTT 00539 (TC): par. 24 (Stewart v SSWP [2003] EWCA Civ 635 not located), par. 28 ('He readily accepted he had used AI'), par. 29 ('the use of AI did not appear to have led to the citing of fictitious cases ... This highlights the dangers of reliance on AI tools without human checks'). Upstream listed a generic 'Fabricated' item and a 'Warning'; the remark is guidance, not a sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/452/Zzaman_v._HMRC_UK_April_3_2025.pdf · paras 24, 28, 29

Outcome

[2025] UKFTT 00539 (TC): par. 24 (Stewart v SSWP [2003] EWCA Civ 635 not located), par. 28 ('He readily accepted he had used AI'), par. 29 ('the use of AI did not appear to have led to the citing of fictitious cases ... This highlights the dangers of reliance on AI tools without human checks'). Upstream listed a generic 'Fabricated' item and a 'Warning'; the remark is guidance, not a sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/452/Zzaman_v._HMRC_UK_April_3_2025.pdf · paras 24, 28, 29

Source link

The N.D. Ohio memorandum opinion of 18 Mar 2025 (Doc. 17) footnote 5 records the defendant's assertion of fictitious AI-generated citations in the opposition brief and puts the plaintiff on notice of dismissal or sanctions; no monetary sanction, matching Warning. Replaces the Justia mirror.

Primary source: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_24-cv-01103/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-1_24-cv-01103-0. · Footnote 5: 'McDonald Hopkins asserts that Alkuda's opposition brief contained fictitious, AI-generated legal citations' and 'Alkuda is now on notice that any further submissions of fictitious legal citations to a court may result in dismissal or other sanctions'; 'Date: March 18, 2025'.

Source link

The D. Utah memorandum decision of 30 May 2025 (Doc. 20, Magistrate Judge Bennett) notes the pro se plaintiff's alternative-service motion cited nonexistent cases and warns of Rule 11 sanctions; no monetary sanction, matching Warning. Replaces the Justia mirror.

Primary source: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_25-cv-00178/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_25-cv-00178-1.pd · Page 5: 'Mr. Andersen has engaged in the same conduct in his motion for alternative service by citing to nonexistent cases' and 'any further instances of such conduct will result in sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11'; 'DATED this 30th day of May 2025.'

Source link

The D. Mont. order of 27 May 2025 (Doc. 137) granting the motions to dismiss with leave to amend warns the plaintiff that her filings cite non-existent cases and that continued misrepresentations will result in dismissal; no monetary sanction, matching Warning. Replaces the docs.justia.com mirror.

Primary source: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-2_24-cv-00174/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-2_24-cv-00174-1.pd · Page 28: 'Brick's filings frequently exceed page limits, disregard procedural requirements, and cite to non-existent cases to support Brick's legal contentions' ... 'continued misrepresentations to the Court, will result in dismissal'; 'DATED this 27th day of May, 2025.'

Source link

The D. Arizona order (CV-25-01295-PHX-GMS, filed 31 Mar 2026) grants the Rule 11 motion against plaintiff's counsel Sheree Wright and Cortney Walters for AI-fabricated citations: fee-shifting (amount to be set after defendant files its costs, hence no amount recorded), CLE on AI, and service on state bars and the district's judges, matching 'Adverse Costs Order; CLE; Notification'. Replaces the aggregator-hosted copy.

Primary source: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-2_25-cv-01295/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-2_25-cv-01295-0.pd · 'Defendant seeks the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions on Plaintiff's counsel—Sheree Wright and Cortney Walters—for citing to fabricated cases generated by artificial intelligence'; 'the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the State Bar of Arizona'; 'reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in discovering the non-existent citations'.

Source link

The grounds of decision of the Singapore High Court (General Division, Assistant Registrar; OA(B) 125/2025, SUM 3405/2025) record the oral decision of 27 Jan 2026 (the record's date) and the personal costs order of S$900 against claimant's counsel Mr Natverlal for miscitation of Sheagar and City Hardware, matching the recorded S$900 monetary sanction, not passed to the client. Counsel denied using AI; the court says whether the miscitations came from AI or carelessness was immaterial and described the Sheagar quotation as appearing wholly fictitious. Replaces the aggregator-hosted copy.

Primary source: www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHCR_13 · 'I gave the parties my brief reasons at the final hearing of this matter on 27 January 2026'; 'I ordered Mr Natverlal to personally pay Choco Up costs in the sum of $900 as a consequence of his miscitations'; 'His purported direct quotation from Sheagar ... also appeared to be completely fictitious'; 'it was, to my mind, immaterial whether the miscitations were the product of the use ... of artificial intelligence, or the result of human carelessness'.

Source link

The opinion of Judge Slade (Bankr. N.D. Ill., No. 24-bk-13368, issued 18 Jul 2025) finds Rule 9011 violated by Nield and Semrad and imposes a joint-and-several $5,500 payment to the Clerk plus AI-course attendance, matching the recorded $5,500. Replaces the Volokh Conspiracy (Reason) write-up.

Primary source: www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/sites/ilnb/files/opinions/179623_MartinRule9011SanctionsOpinionwTran · 'Bankruptcy Caption: In re Marla C. Martin', 'Bankruptcy No.: 24-bk-13368', 'Date of Issuance: July 18, 2025'; 'I find that they both violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. I further find that a modest, joint-and-several sanction of $5,500, paid to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court'.

Source link

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals memorandum opinion of 30 Oct 2025 denies the mandamus petition and states the relator's brief cites non-existent cases, putting her on notice of possible sanctions under Tex. R. App. P. 52.11; no sanction imposed, matching Warning. Replaces the Justia mirror.

Primary source: search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=1b185a4d-abed-40b7-bb18-fab779b5a832&c · 'the court is aware that relator's brief includes citations to non-existent cases. Relator is put on notice that she may face sanctions in the future for citing false caselaw. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.11(a)'; 'Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2025.'

Source link

The E.D. Cal. order of 4 Aug 2025 (Doc. 10) adopting the findings and recommendations is the decision behind the record: it finds one cited case 'appears to be fictitious' and warns of Rule 11 sanctions. No monetary sanction, matching the Warning outcome. Replaces the Justia mirror.

Primary source: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00408/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00408-2. · Page 2: 'which appears to be fictitious, and the remaining two of which do not support her argument' and 'Plaintiff is warned that submitting a fictitious case citation and summary to the Court may be grounds for sanctions under Rule 11'; 'IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2025' (filed 08/04/25).

Source link

The 23 May 2025 order (W.D. Okla., pro se plaintiff) is the record behind the case's date and its Warning outcome: footnote 4 says the court has 'serious reason to believe' the plaintiff used artificial intelligence tools to draft her objection because it cites authorities, like Cabrera, that do not exist, and warns that continuing to do so will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal. The order itself adopts the magistrate's recommendation to deny IFP; no amount.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.okwd.130468/gov.uscourts.okwd.130468.11.0.pdf · Caption 'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ... Case No. CIV-25-317-J'; n.4: 'The Court has serious reason to believe that Plaintiff used artificial intelligence tools to assist in drafting her objection.' ... 'Continuing to cite to non-existent cases will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal.'

Source link

The 10 Jun 2025 order (Judge Estudillo) is the record behind the case's date and its Warning outcome: footnote 4 finds that plaintiffs' briefing (Reed 2, Dkt. 23) quotes language not found in the cited Ninth Circuit cases and cites Horne v. Potter for a case titled Bell v. The Hershey Company, notes plaintiffs appear to acknowledge fictitious citations (Dkt. 27), and cautions that fictitious cases and quotes will lead to sanctions. No sanction and no amount, which matches the empty amount.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.348339/gov.uscourts.wawd.348339.29.0.pdf · Caption 'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ... ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES AND ADDRESSING ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS'; n.4: 'Plaintiffs identify fictitious quotes and citations in their briefing to support their arguments' ... 'Plaintiffs are cautioned that providing fictitious cases and quotes will lead to sanctions.'

Source link

The 21 Oct 2025 hearing transcript is the record behind the case's date: counsel for the Ader defendants is told that signing papers 'takes on a responsibility' for their citations and that what happened 'is not what's expected of a lawyer appearing before this court', and plaintiff's counsel gets leave to move for sanctions. The order to show cause that set the hearing is ECF 234 (17 Oct 2025, same docket). The Warning outcome rests on that oral admonition; no monetary sanction was imposed at the hearing, which matches the empty amount.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.600526/gov.uscourts.nysd.600526.239.0_1. · ECF 239 caption 'SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ... RIMU CAPITAL LTD. ... 23 Civ. 5065 (LJL)'; p. 9-10: 'I'm going to give Mr. Blue leave to make a motion for sanctions ... anybody who puts their name to papers takes on a responsibility with respect to those papers' and 'that is not what's expected of a lawyer appearing before this court'. ECF 234: 'The Ader Defendants are ordered to show cause at the hearing why they should not be sanctioned' over 'numerous fake case citations and quotations'.

Source link

The 13 Jun 2025 R&R (Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y.) is the record behind the case's date and its 'No sanction' outcome: footnote 4 finds counsel's Green v. Streater cite fabricated and the 'placeholder' explanation implausible, and declines further action. No AI-specific sanction or amount; the $500,000 in the R&R is punitive damages against the defaulted defendant, unrelated to the citation.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.478948/gov.uscourts.nyed.478948.71.0.pdf · Caption 'EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK', 'Document 71 Filed 06/13/25'; n.4: 'Krupnick admitted that he fabricated the Green case and claimed that he used it as a "placeholder" in a draft. It is implausible that an attorney would cite a case as specific as ... as a "placeholder"' and 'the Court declines to recommend further action with respect to Rutella's misleading submission.'

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1248/Harvey_v._Torrent_Leasing_USA_15_December_2025.pdf · "Harvey cited to Flangas v. Perfekt Marketing, but the citation he included corresponds instead to Lawrence v. Clark County, and he included a fake quote from the since-overruled Seventh Circuit decision Nesses v. Shepard." (order p.10; Nesses v. Shepard, 68 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir. 1995))

Classification tags

5th Cir. order names a nonexistent case; upstream metadata carries no hint, so the rule cannot see it (legal-ai-risk-fa91 sample row 11)

Primary source: www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60496-CV0.pdf · "still contained hallucinated information (namely, a citation to a purported Fourth Circuit case, 'Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk,' that does not exist)" (5th Cir. 25-60496, p.3)

Classification tags

Court record read (legal-ai-risk-fa91): the cited case does not exist, but the importer rule cannot see it (header is not Fabricated:); the tag stays

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/595/2025abkb417.pdf · It does not appear based on the Father’s materials and submissions that he was aware that the cases cited by the Mother did not exist.

Classification tags

Court record read (legal-ai-risk-fa91): the cited case does not exist, but the importer rule cannot see it (header is not Fabricated:); the tag stays

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1173/Boger_v._Harrisonburg_USA_9_December_2025.pdf · The court cannot identify a case with this name. The case actually corresponding to that case reporter, Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2014), does not support Boger’s assertion.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.314851/gov.uscourts.pawd.314851.53.0.pdf · "[T]he briefs . . . contain wholly fabricated quotations from caselaw . . . In addition to including non-existent quotations, the briefs repeatedly misrepresent case law." (Memorandum Order, ECF No. 53, p.1)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/906/Jones_v._DC_Office_of_Unified_Communication_USA_22_O · "Plaintiff's counsel, Donald Quinn, cites to nonexistent quotations ... opposition brief persistently attributes quotations to cases that do not contain the quoted material ... bear the hallmarks of reliance on an artificial intelligence tool."

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1294/Allen_v._Experian_USA_4_January_2026.pdf · relies on quoted language from Truckstop.net ... and Blahd v. Richard B. Smith, Inc. ... that appears entirely fabricated. ... Allen misrepresents the holdings of these cases.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2841/Brown_v_Real_Estate_Capital_of_Am._LLC_USA_7_August · "Movants have identified a quotation in plaintiffs' opposition papers that does not appear in the case to which the opposition attributes it." (*4, Section III)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2689/Cames_v._Lowe_USA_July_2026.pdf · "Lowe's misrepresents the holdings in the cases cited, provides non-existent pinpoint citations for its propositions" (fn 3: Shetty p. 625 does not exist; fn 4: Kroma p. 1359 beyond its end)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2183/Curtin_v._Watts_USA_19_May_2026.pdf · "Curtin's brief contains fabricated quotations that directly contradict the actual holdings of the cited cases" ... "This quotation is a fabrication." (Sinochem, Christianson) (pp. 14-15, Part II.C)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2127/Tobler_v._Tobler_USA_7_May_2026.pdf · Tobler's response brief includes a false quote from Bunner and that opinion did not address the issue relevant here.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1490/FLORA_CHUMPITAZ-MORALES_-_DSTC_Petitioners_v_PAMELA · Ms. Chumpitaz-Morales's brief misrepresents the holdings of several cases it cites. We suspect this may be due to use of an 'artificial intelligence' (AI) product

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3190/Garcia_v._City_of_Monte_Vista_USA_29-05-2026.pdf · "[T]here is no question that . . . attributing a nonexistent quotation to an existing case . . . violates Rule 11(b)." (order p.2; Miller v. Spiers, 339 F. App'x 862 (10th Cir. 2009))

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2837/Tate_Marriage_USA_11_August_2026.pdf · "Father's brief contains general citations to cases that exist and does not directly quote any of those cases. Insofar as most of his propositions are not supported by the citations, this violates ... Rule 341(h)(7)" (para 45)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1230/In_re_SA_USA_29_December_2025_-_ECF_96.pdf · "respondent cites to actual cases with fictitious quotes and holdings." (para. 80); "Respondent's use of fictitious quotations from actual cases violates our supreme court rules" (para. 87)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2917/Marriage_of_Dillon_USA_18_AUgust_2026.pdf · Wife miscited three cases ... by attributing to them quotations or legal propositions that do not appear in the cited opinions.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2752/In_the_interest_of_S.M.T._and_S.J.T._USA_July_2026. · Although the Marriage of Harrison case exists, the passage that Mr. Lavespere quoted is entirely fabricated.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2169/Miller_v._Regions_Bank_USA_21_May_2026.pdf · Although the cases are real, the court was unable to find the quotations within them or in any other authority the court reviewed.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1926/Zea_v._National_Association_of_Realtors_USA_24_Marc · "While the cases Plaintiff relies on do exist, the quotations, and even most of the legal concepts, are fake." (R&R p.16, III.i)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1300/Kamps_v._BCC_USA_7_January_2026.pdf · "Plaintiff cites Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795), not for anything actually in that case, which concerns federal jurisdiction in prize cases, but for a fabricated quotation" (slip op. p.3)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1775/In_re_Mersad_Rahmanovic_Debtor_Keirton.pdf · While the cases Rahmanovic cites are real, the quotes he cites do not exist.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2018/Geddes_v._Loancare_USA_22_April_2026.pdf · "Plaintiff misquoted Kachlon v. Markowitz, 168 Cal.App.4th 316 (2008) ... Barrionuevo deals with the tender rule to wrongful foreclosure cases and does not discuss nominal party status anywhere in the opinion." (p. 3)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1492/JOSHUA_WARREN_LABONTE_Plaintiff_v_BOKF_NA_UNIVERSAL · "Harris is a real case, its correct citation is 274 F.R.D. 556 ... Sterling is a real case, but its correct citation is 855 F.2d 1188. Moreover, Sterling was decided by the Sixth Circuit, not a Colorado court" (fn.1)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2000/Langen-v_3JgtM7g.-The-Owners-Strata-Plan-EPS5455-20 · "All the cases exist, but the summaries for all but one of them are incorrect and the cases do not stand for the legal bases that the applicants presented. For one of the cases, the applicants included a fake quote." (para 11)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2454/Merz_v._Jenkins_USA_15_June_2026.pdf · Merz improperly attributes a nonexistent quotation from 'the Supreme Court' ... to this court's decision in State ex rel. McCool

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2691/Mullins_v._Dusquesne_U._USA_15_July_2026.pdf · "Plaintiff's Brief presents neither inaccurate, false, or non-existent case citations" (Part IV.B, *4)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1909/Nguedi_v._AO_USA_31_March_2026.pdf · "Plaintiff claims that page 495 of Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) contains the quote ... But this quote appears nowhere in that decision" (slip op. 20 n.3)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2051/Jarvis_v._County_USA_24_April_2026.pdf · "we cannot find this quote (or any similar proposition) in Spinelli. Nor does the quotation appear in any other federal or state case." (n.3); "this holding is not found in Meechaicum" (n.4)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1008/STC_17832-2025.pdf · "las dos sí fueron proferidas por la Sala de Casación Civil ... pero ninguna de ellas contiene las expresiones que el Tribunal Superior de Sincelejo transcribió con literalidad ... los párrafos transcritos ... son inexistentes"

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2271/Smith_v_Polk_County_et_al__ncwdc_USA_3_June_2026.pd · The Plaintiff's counsel has not provided an adequate explanation for the fabricated quotations identified by the Defendants.

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2834/Wayne_Smith_v._Polk_County_USA_7_August_2026.pdf · "counsel has not explained the origin of the fabricated quotations other than to accept responsibility for them" (Section IV.C, order to show cause, pp.30-31)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1256/Wireless_Investors_v._Semtech_In_USA_18_December_20 · The citations, at times, included nonexistent quotes, misstated the holding, did not support the premise put forth by Plaintiff, or were not applicable

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2097/Rubio_v._Mullin_USA_1_May_2026.pdf · "None of these quotes appear in the cases to which Mr. Gurri Rubio cites." (In re United States, Hahn, Hazel-Atlas; p. 8) and Taalebinezhaad: "the quotation ... does not exist" (p. 12)

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3110/Youssian_v_Village_of_Kings_Point_USA_9_September_2 · "petitioners included quotations from at least five otherwise legitimate cases which were either entirely fabricated, or which were altered from their original versions." (also: "The remainder of the cases and quotations cited ... appear to be legitimate.")

Classification tags

Court finds fabricated quotations or misdescribed holdings in cases that exist, not a nonexistent case or citation (fake-citations = nonexistent authority, Lagos decision 2026-10-30); failure stays under fabricated-quotes / misrepresented-authority

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2149/Powell_v_8JHRX0s._Borough_USA_12_May_2026.pdf · "Plaintiff includes quotations from real cases, but the quotations are fabricated. Defendants list numerous examples. See Reply at 2-3." (Part III.D, p. 8)

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 534246-07-22 (Enforcement and Collection Authority, Central District Maintenance Track, 2025-11-02): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is a prior decision restated by the court: no party, represented or not, may invent citations, including through AI (general admonition). Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 1): "28 (נבו9.3.25 ), עמדתי על החשיבות לשמור על הליך משפטי תקין וכי אסור גם לצד שאינו מיוצג להמציא בעצמו או באמצעות מקורות אחרים, כגון בינה מלאכותית, ציטוטים שגויים שלא נבדקו ופסקי דין שאינם נכונים. 3. בבקשת החייב לבטל את החלטתי מיום15". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1005/hotzlap3.pdf · p. 1

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of America (C.D. California, 2025-12-16): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is 'apparently hallucinated case citation'; counsel blamed outside counsel; no AI named. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 1): "When the Court inquired regarding the apparently hallucinated case citation, Plaintiffs’ counsel attributed the citation to outside counsel". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1193/Cruz_v._USA_USA_16_December_2025.pdf · p. 1

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ayatollah Hylton v. Chivone Janee Hylton, et al. (S.D. Florida, 2026-01-05): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is general Rule 11 statement that relying on AI to generate cases without verifying is not reasonable inquiry. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 4): "1(b). Reasonable inquiry means that parties must check the citations and quotations within their filings for accuracy. Relying on artificial intelligence to generate cases to support a proposition, for example, without verifying t". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1390/AYATOLLAH_HYLTON_Plaintiff_v_CHIVONE_JANEE_HYLTON_e · p. 4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLC (D. New Jersey, 2026-03-26): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is recites the defendants' request to bar AI use; the court finds citations it cannot locate but does not say AI produced them. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 10): "s have requested that the Court impose a filing injunction on plaintiffs or , in the alternative , prohibit plaintiffs from using artificial intelligence to prepare filings or require that plaintiffs include affidavits with their". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1922/Baker_v._Rastelli_Foods_USA_26_March_2026.pdf · p. 10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Benjamin Gamble v. Ho-Chunk Nation Election Board (Ho-Chunk Nation Trial Court, 2025-06-30): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is general statement that accuracy must not be sacrificed for fiction 'created by use of Artificial Intelligence or similar tools'. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 9): "with on-line research, but we must 27 28 not sacrifice accuracy and truth for the sake of a “story” or fiction created by use of Artificial Intelligence or similar tools. Fact checking is critical. Case No. CV 25-08 Order Page 9 o". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/833/Ho_Chunk_CV-25-08-ORDER-1.pdf · p. 9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Clerk of the Ct. v. Rangel (Florida CA, 2025-08-29): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is general statement that the dangers of generative AI have been discussed in the media and legal publications. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 2): "by separate order to minimize the potential prejudice to his client arising from his conduct. Finally, the dangers of relying on generative artificial intelligence have been discussed in the media, in legal publications, and in co". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/732/Clerk_of_the_Ct._v._Rangel_USA_29_August_2025.PDF · p. 2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2026-03-16): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is caution that AI programs are known to hallucinate, addressed to a litigant whose own citations are not attributed to AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 4): "e similarly irrelevant to the present dispute. Beato-Estrella is cautioned that not all resources are created equal. For example, AI programs have been known to hallucinate, or create fake cases, in response to a user’s query. Ben". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1694/Beato_Estrella_v._Swaney_USA_16_March_2026.pdf · p. 4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Friend v. Serpa (CA Florida, 2025-12-17): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is general reminder that those who use AI must ensure accuracy; sanction declined. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 1): "eys and those, like appellee, who proceed pro se are responsible for the content of their submissions to the court. Those who use artificial intelligence to assist in these submissions must ensure their accuracy. While we decline". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1252/Friend_v_Serpa_USA_17_December_2025.pdf · p. 1

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): IBS Government Services, Inc. (GAO, 2025-08-29): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is cites GAO's own earlier explanation that AI drafting can produce nonexistent citations (general). Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 7): "d. Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, B-423447, May 7, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 112 at 4. In Raven, we explained that using artificial intelligence (AI) programs to draft legal briefs can result in citations to nonexistent d". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/744/IBS_Gov._Srvs._881152.pdf · p. 7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re R.L. (CA Illinois, 2025-08-20): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is the court's text never says the filing used AI; the only AI wording outside the Westlaw header is a press-article title cited in a passage about another lawyer's sanctions. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 12): "Springfield Attorney Fined for Using AI, Citing 'Nonexistent' Cases (Aug. 1, 2025) [press article cited in a passage on another lawyer's sanctions]". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/754/In_re_RL.pdf · p. 12

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Johnson v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice et al (M.D. Florida, 2026-02-19): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is refers to an earlier motion struck for citing 'hallucinated cases'; no AI named. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 7): "DJJ's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Count I, III, IV , V , and VII was then struck by the Court, Dkt. 158, as it cited to hallucinated cases. See Dkt. 150 at 7, 13, 16 (citing Watson v. Amedisys Holding, LLC, 298 F. App'x". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1570/QUINTAURUS_L_JOHNSON_Plaintiff_v_DEPARTMENT_OF_JUVE · p. 7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): K.W. v. Ringwood Board of Education (D. New Jersey, 2026-06-16): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is quotes caselaw on AI-hallucinated law as a general caution. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 21): "ns counsel to use more care going forward, as “[n]umerous examples exist where district courts have found legal briefs containing AI hallucinated case law masked as actual legal authority . . . . When this occurs, courts have foun". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2448/KW_v._Ringwood_Board_USA_16_June_2026.pdf · p. 21

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation (S.D. Indiana, 2025-11-18): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is cautions that submitting hallucinated citations is unacceptable; no AI named. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 6): "l databases. (Dkt. 20-1). Nellum is not excused from compliance with the procedural rules and is hereby cautioned that submitting hallucinated citations to the Court is unacceptable. Such conduct can result in sanctions. See Pearl". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1064/Nellum_v._Credit_Acceptance_Corp_USA_18_November_20 · p. 6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Lareina A. Sauls v. Pierce County, et al. (W.D. Washington, 2025-10-30): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is conditional footnote ('To the extent she uses these tools'); no suggestion she did. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 5): "nderlying legal proceedings at issue or details of any adverse ruling, name any 1 The Court has no formal rule against the use of generative artificial intelligence to write pleadings and briefs. To the extent she uses these tools". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/971/Sauls_v._Pierce_Country_USA_30_October_2025.pdf · p. 5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Letts v. Avidien Technologies (E.D. North Carolina, 2024-12-16): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is general observation about AI in courts nationwide with citations to other cases. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 13): "at there are aliens on both sides of the current case. It is noted that in courts across the nation, an apparent increased use of artificial intelligence technologies has given rise to citations to non-existent cases or legal cita". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/371/Letts_v._Avidien_Technologies_E.D._North_Carolina_US · p. 13

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (1) (D. New Mexico, 2025-11-05): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is warning after fictitious authorities, framed by the general rise of AI; the court does not say or suspect this plaintiff used AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 22): "ements of removal. C. Warning to Plaintiff In light of the foregoing, th e Court issues a warning to Plaintiff. Given the rise of artificial intelligence and its use in court proceedings, courts have begun ordering litigants suspe". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/991/Lowrey_v._City_of_Rio_Rancho_USA_5_November_2025.pdf · p. 22

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (2) (D. New Mexico, 2026-05-21): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is the AI wording is the plaintiff's own accusation that the court equates errors with 'AI hallucinations'; not the court's finding. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 10): "falsely equivocate one or two good faith errors into a slew of 'AI hallucinations' without any proof [plaintiff's accusation, quoted by the court]". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2188/Lowrey_v._City_of_Rio_Rancho_USA_21_May_2026.pdf · p. 10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural (S.D. New York, 2026-03-09): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is general remark on fabrications and hallucinations with a Mata v. Avianca citation. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 2): "ng on such phenomena since the spring of 2023, one would think that serious lawyers would be on their guard against fabrications, hallucinations and bogus material. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y . 2023). I". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1664/M7_v._Plywood_USA_9_March_2026.pdf · p. 2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Maruta v. Mahon (HRT Ontario, 2026-03-02): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is refers to the tribunal's practice direction on AI; the court calls the cases 'manufactured' without naming AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 6): "and accuracy of submissions made to the Tribu nal. Reference should be had to Tribunal Ontario’s Practice Direction on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Tribunal Proceedings . Certainly, the applicant’s reliance on manufa". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1709/Maruta-v.-Mahon-2026-HRTO-356.pdf · p. 6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1) (W.D. Washington, 2025-10-17): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is advises the plaintiffs not to rely on AI programs after finding nonexistent cases; a directive, not a statement that they used AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 4): "on and all citations submitted are accurate and real pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Plaintiff should not rely on artificial intelligence programs to conduct research or draft legal arguments. 1 Examples include: •". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/891/Button_v._Jimison_USA_17_October_2025.pdf · p. 4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Morris Gafni v. Rapid Foreclosure Refunds et al. (SC New York, 2025-11-21): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is 'commonly known as hallucinations' without naming AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 9): "contain fictitious or fabricated citations to authority (commonly known as hallucinations)". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1099/Gafni_v._Rapid_Foreclosure_REfunds_USA_21_NOvember_ · p. 9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): No. 25BX02906 (CAA Bordeaux, 2026-02-26): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is «hallucination» ou «confabulation» sans mention de l'IA. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 5): "n'existent pas. Il y a donc lieu d'inviter le conseil du requérant à vérifier à l'avenir que les références trouvées par quelque moyen que ce soit ne constituent pas une « hallucination » ou une « confabulation »". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1577/1772365389985.pdf · p. 5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Nunez v. American Airlines, Inc. (S.D. Florida, 2025-07-24): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is quotes another case on a 'hallucinated, fake case citation'; no AI named. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 16): "n Navigation Enters., LLC, No. 17-CV-81140, 2025 WL 1440351, at *7 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (“The Court takes the submission of a hallucinated, fake case citation supposedly supporting a principle of law very seriously. It is a se". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/723/Nunez_v._Am_Airlines_USA_24_July_2025.pdf · p. 16

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Pakuza v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Queensland IRC, 2025-12-16): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is refers to a practice direction and guidelines on generative AI (general). Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 7): "Practice Direction 1 of 2024 is relevant. The Queensland Courts have also recently released guidelines for the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence by non-lawyers that may be relevant. [8] [2022] QIRC 189. [9] For". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1317/Pakuza_v_Workers_Compensation_Regulator_Australia_1 · p. 7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Philip D. Dennison v. June Caudill et al. (S.D. Indiana, 2026-04-23): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is standing notice to pro se litigants on AI; no allegation of use. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 10): "h judge would preside over the matter. However, this Court entered a supplemental notice to pro se litigants regarding the use of artificial intelligence on April 13, 2026. Dkt. 8. This notice and the Practices and Procedures of t". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2049/Dennisson_v._Caudill_USA_23_April_2026.pdf · p. 10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (D. Oregon, 2026-05-19): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is hallucinated citations by government counsel, no AI named. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 9): "h denial before the United States district court for the district in 4 USCIS’s counsel submitted two court filings that contained hallucinated case citations. (See Defs.’ Suggested Findings Fact Conclusions Law, ECF No. 34 and Res". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2390/X_v._US_Immigration_USA_9_June_2026.pdf · p. 9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union (D. Kansas, 2026-02-25): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is refers to a court-wide standing order on AI; no allegation that this party used AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 4): "t to locate the case in its records. Since the filing of Plaintiff's brief, this court has entered a standing order on the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in court filings. Standing Order 26-01 (In Re: Use of Artificial Inte". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1583/Hunt_v._True_Sky_USA_25_February_2026.pdf · p. 4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Shaddai Harris v. Iliac, LLC (CA Texas, 2026-07-16): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is 'hallucinated citations' without naming AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 2): "s’s first pro se brief and ordered her to file an amended brief after appellees challenged her brief for containing at least four hallucinated citations and at least twenty citations that did not stand for the proposition or holdi". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2681/Shaddai_Harris_v._Iliac_USA_17_July_2026.pdf · p. 2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Smith v. Gamble (CA Ohio, 2025-07-07): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is cites another court sanctioning an AI-generated brief as an example of a brief like the one filed here, but never says this party used AI. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 5): "a federal district court exercising its inherent authority to sanction a party that submitted a brief exhibiting the hallmarks of a brief generated by artificial intelligence [Gonzalez v. Tex. Taxpayers, cited as an example]". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/575/Smith_v._Gamble_USA_7_July_2025.PDF · p. 5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Straub v. Henderson (DCA Florida, 2026-02-25): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is quotes another court on the dangers of generative AI (general). Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 1): ", Hillsborough Cnty. v. Rangel, No. 2D2024-1772, 2025 WL 2486314, at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 29, 2025) (“[T]he dangers of relying on generative artificial intelligence have been discussed in the media, in legal publications, and in c". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1588/Straub_v._Henderson_USA_25_February_2026.pdf · p. 1

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): TA Orléans, Reconduite à la frontière, n° 2506907 (TA Orléans, 2026-01-07): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is «hallucination» ou «confabulation» sans mention de l'IA. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 7): "le conseil du requérant à vérifier à l’avenir que les références trouvées par quelque moyen que ce soit ne constituent pas une « hallucination » ou une « confabulation ». D E C I D E : Article 1er : La décision du préfet d’Eure-et". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1949/TA_Orleans_reconduite_a_la_frontiere_7_janv._2026_n · p. 7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Tafah et al. v. Lake Village Townhomes et al. (D. Maryland, 2026-01-16): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is cautions that courts threaten sanctions on pro se litigants citing AI-hallucinated authority (general). Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 21): "tate a claim against them. The amended complaint contains two allegations relating to RentGrow and Equifax, namely that their "[f]ai!ure to verify credit and eviction information prior to housing ·denial violates FCRA obligations,". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1481/Tafah_v._Lake_Village_Townhomes_USA_16_January_2026 · p. 21

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): United States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (1) (W.D. Virginia, 2025-08-27): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is parenthetical about another case where a pro se litigant cited AI-generated fictitious cases. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 8): "declining to impose sanctions on a pro se litigant for citing fictitious cases generated by AI [Kruglyak v. Home Depot, cited by the court]". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/755/UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERICA_v_MICHAEL_SHANE_DEBAERE.pdf · p. 8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Washburn v. Houston (Arizona CA, 2026-01-02): the court's AI or 'hallucinated' wording is 'hallucinated quotations'; no AI named. Criterion decided by Lagos 2026-10-30: a general warning or 'hallucinated' without the court suggesting AI use in this case is Unidentified; none of the 34 rows has the court raise the possibility for this party (court_raises_possibility). Quote (p. 7): "parent’s quality of life. None of the above cases discuss the claimed relocation factor. ¶28 In similar fashion, Father includes hallucinated quotations from Owen v. Blackhawk , 206 Ariz. 418 (App. 2003), including that “the trial". The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1275/Washburn_v._Houston_2_January_2026.pdf · p. 7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 12 Os 124/25i (Austrian Supreme Court, 3 Nov 2025): no mention of AI or of artificial intelligence anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/981/12_Os_124_25i_Austria_3_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): KG Berlin 3 ORbs 164/25 (25 Aug 2025): the senate finds a rechtsbeschwerde brief built from boilerplate (Textbausteine) written for speed-camera cases, with freely invented assertions about the proceedings, and calls it senseless automated litigation (sinnlos automatisierte Prozessfuehrung); the decision never mentions AI (KI). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1042/KG_Berlin_3_ORbs_164-25_NJRE001625355.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 76 Route 6 Holdings v. Town of Yorktown (S.D.N.Y., 30 Mar 2026): admonishes counsel on false quotations citing Rule 11 sanction cases (Lexos, In re Molina: "fictitious case citations"); no mention of AI in 60 pages. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1882/76_Route_6_Holdings_Inc_v_Town_of_Yorktown_New_York · pp. 1-60

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Alzado-Lotz v. Bock (D. Colo., 16 Jan 2026): the court notes the defendant cites a non-existent case (Hinzo v. State of N.M.); no mention of AI in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1360/Alzado-Lotz_v._Bock_USA_16_January_2026.pdf · pp. 1-11

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Anderson v. Akam Associates (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 27 Oct 2025): motion to seal and to enforce a settlement with a request for sanctions; the only AI wording is the Westlaw Editor's Note ("likely generated by AI tools"), which is not the court's text and states that the citations are not attributable to the Court. The order itself never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2350/23_-_Anderson_v_Akam_Associates_Inc.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Babbar v. Tarion Warranty Corporation (LAT Ontario, 25 Aug 2025): the adjudicator was "unable to locate" the decisions the appellant cites and could not assess them; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1729/Babbar-v.-Tarion-Warranty-Corporation-2025-CanLII-1 · pp. 1-15

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group (N.D. Ohio, 8 Jul 2026): no mention of AI in 25 pages. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2585/Burlingame_v._ARGO_Private_Client_Group_Ltd._USA_8_ · pp. 1-25

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Cesareo v. Port Authority of NY and NJ (D.N.J., 31 Dec 2025): no mention of AI or hallucination anywhere in the 14-page decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1293/Cesareo_v._Port_Authority_of_NY_and_NJ_USA_31_Decem · pp. 1-14

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Force v. Capital One (M.D. Fla., 15 Oct 2025): the court recounts its earlier "Order Noting Nonexistent Caselaw" cautioning Force not to cite nonexistent cases; no mention of AI in 13 pages. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/875/Force_v._Capital_One_USA_15_October_2025.pdf · pp. 1-13

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Smith v. Trump (D.D.C., 16 Oct 2025): the opposition by Mr. Meggs's counsel is "rife with fabricated citations" to local rules that "do not exist"; the order never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/885/Smith_v._Trump_USA_16_OCtober_2025.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Cotto v. United States (D. Colo., 17 Nov 2025): the court notes the plaintiff cites a supposed Ayala v. Holmes decision at 29 F.4th 1015 and says that case does not exist; no AI term anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1061/Cotto_v._USA_USA_17_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Donovan v. Thorson (N.M. Ct. App., 12 Nov 2025): the court notes Plaintiff's citations that refer to the wrong reporter or lack the quoted language and denies the motion to strike and sanctions; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1031/Donovan_v._Thorson__Fidelity_Invt_USA_12_November_2 · pp. 1-3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Di Rocco, Corte di Cassazione sez. pen. 3, sent. n. 25455/2025 (10 Jul 2025): tax-fraud appeal; the defence says it could not find the precedents cited by the appeal judgment and the Court notes the judgment cites principles or rulings that are inexact; no mention of AI anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1399/_20250710_snpens30a2025n25455tS.clean.pdf · pp. 1-8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Rol 23.322-2025 (Corte Suprema de Chile, 22 Apr 2026): disciplinary sanction (one-month suspension, 5 UTM fine) for doctrinal citations whose authenticity was doubted; the court speaks of lack of professionalism and good faith, never of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2536/SANCIONABOGADAIATERCERASALA.pdf · pp. 1-3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Estate of Downing v. Brown (11th Cir., 20 May 2026, unpublished): the court finds that the appellate brief rests almost exclusively on fabricated legal authorities (a precedent and quotation that do not exist) and strikes those portions under the Rule 11 duty; no mention of AI anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2185/Downing_v._Brown_USA_20_May_2026.pdf · pp. 1-8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Kilinc v. PMMUE Eduservices (S.D.N.Y., Magistrate Judge Gorenstein): order noting fabricated quotations or citations in a reply memorandum and requiring a sworn list of improper citations before an order to show cause; the only quoted precedent is Anonymous v. NYC Dept of Education, and the order never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1118/Kilinc_v_PMMUE_Eduservices_USA_21_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Espinoza v. M&R Const. Group (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 19 Mar 2026): the court finds a cited case ("Parrelli v. Temple Beth El") does not exist; the only AI wording is the Westlaw Editor's Note, not the court's text. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2331/04_-_Espinoza_v_MAndR_Const_Group_Inc.pdf · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty (S.D.N.Y., 25 Mar 2026): Rule 11 sanctions for "fabricated quotes" and "fictitious statutory language"; no mention of AI in 61 pages. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1826/Fecteau_USA_25_March_2026.pdf · pp. 1-61

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Garibay-Robledo v. Noem (N.D. Tex., 9 Jan 2026): the original petition relied on a non-existent Fifth Circuit case and petitioner filed a corrected petition; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1306/Garibay-Robledo_v_Noem_USA_9_January_2026.pdf · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Gezalayan v. BMW North America (Cal. Super. Ct., 6 Aug 2025): the court orders counsel to explain a non-existent case (Steele v. Toyota Motor Sales) that is the sole authority for one argument and admonishes counsel; the only AI wording is the Westlaw editor's note ("likely generated by AI tools ... not attributable to the Court"). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2356/29_-_Gezalayan_v_BMW_North_American_LLC.pdf · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Dulac c. Ville de Gatineau (TAQ, 11 Oct 2025), French: the tribunal reports that searches did not find several cited decisions, which "s'avèrent inexistantes ou leur référence est erronée"; no mention of AI anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1782/Dulac-c.-Ville-de-Gatineau-2025-CanLII-113234-QC-TA · pp. 1-19

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Dela Torre v. Davies Life & Health (N.D. Ill., 11 Apr 2025): minute entry finding five citations wrong or irrelevant ("wasted judicial resources"); the order does not mention AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1602/Dela_Torre_v._Nippon_Life_USA_11_April_2025.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Gunter v. Contango ORE (D. Alaska, 23 Apr 2026): the court reminds the pro se plaintiff to verify authorities after "chasing down nonexistent authorities"; no mention of AI anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2059/Gunter_v._Contango_USA_23_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-21

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Gustafson v. Amazon.com (D. Ariz., 30 Apr 2025): the court notes the contrary authority plaintiff cites "is a non-existent case" (n. 2); no mention of AI anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/345/Gustafson_v._Amazon.com_Incorporated_D._Arizona_Apri · pp. 1-6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): H.F. v. State of New York (Ct. Cl., 10 Feb 2026): the court strikes counsel's affirmation for citing "apparently fictitious cases"; the only AI wording is Westlaw's editor's note ("likely generated by AI tools"), which states it is not attributable to the Court; the opinion itself never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2334/07_-_HF_v_State.pdf · pp. 1-3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Harris v. Take-Two Interactive (D. Colo., 6 May 2025): the only AI text is defendant's remark that courts have cautioned against generative AI (while saying plaintiff's method of research is "unknown") and a see-also parenthetical from Willis; the court finds fictitious quotes/cases but never ties them to AI. Borderline, flagged. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/344/Harris_v._Take-Two_Interactive_Software_Inc._Colorad · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ilyas (Re), 2026 ABSRA 1012 (SafeRoads Alberta): the adjudicator cannot locate two decisions cited without full citations; the decision never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2322/Ilyas-Re-2026-ABSRA-1012.pdf · pp. 1-10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re Garcia-Martz (Bankr. N.D. Ind., 10 Jun 2026): order on a Chapter 13 trustee's brief on disbursement of funds after dismissal; criticises deficient and misleading arguments and "a non-existent Bankruptcy Rule", with no mention of AI in the court's text. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2507/In_re_Garcia-Martz_USA_June_2026.pdf · pp. 1-11

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re M.H., M.L. and M.H., Minors (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist., 28 May 2026): the Public Guardian argues the Mother cites "fictitious case holdings" and cases that "do not exist"; the court's text never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2240/In_re_MH_ML_and_MH_Minors_USA_28_May_2026.pdf · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re Molina (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., 22 Sep 2025): some of the Defendant's cited cases "do not exist"; "Regardless of the source for the questionable case citations, the fact remains that some of the cases cited by the Defendant do not exist"; the only AI wording is a parenthetical describing another court's order (Kruglyak). The court does not attribute the citations to AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/840/In_re_Molina_USA_22_September_2025.pdf · pp. 1-22

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re Ford (Bankr. W.D.N.C., 29 Jul 2025): the court notes the debtor citing non-existent legal authorities and wonders about misleading advice from a jurisprudence course the debtor took; the order never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/660/Ryan_Lashon_Ford_USA_29_July_2025.PDF · pp. 1-14

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re McGann (Bankr. D. Colo., 27 Oct 2025): the court notes In re Smith, 582 B.R. 1 is a fake case the debtor has cited repeatedly and does not exist; the only AI words are in the Westlaw "Search Details" header, not in the court's text. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/967/In_re_Sherry_Ann_Mcgann_USA_27_October_2025.pdf · pp. 1-15

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re T.F., P.F. and S.S. (Ohio Ct. App., 25 Nov 2025): the court finds fictitious case citations ("Sain v. Roo" assigned to no case) and a nonexistent rule; no mention of AI anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1153/In_re_TF_PF_and_SS_Minor_Children_USA_25_November_2 · pp. 1-8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): In re Marriage of Rodrigues (Cal. Ct. App., 2026 WL 1102361): the court finds the brief supplies fictitious citations (a list of In re Marriage of ... cases that do not exist) and mentions possible dismissal as frivolous; no AI term anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2048/Rodrigues_v._Craig_USA_22_April_2022.pdf · pp. 1-10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Quinones v. Unknown Love (E.D. Mo., 31 Mar 2026): plaintiff "cites at least three fake cases" and misreports holdings of real ones; the court never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1913/Quinones_v._Love_USA_31_March_2026.pdf · pp. 1-12

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Davidson v. Chang-Warner (Fla. 6th DCA, 26 Jun 2026): the court sanctions nonexistent or inaccurate authorities under rule 2.515(d)(2); the only AI reference is "with or without the assistance of AI" inside a quotation from another decision (Hessert) as a general notice to all filers, not a finding about this brief. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2532/JAIME_ALEXANDER_DAVIDSON_v._NAYELI_NADIR_CHANG-WARN · pp. 1-7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Young v. Happy Money (8th Cir. BAP): the panel finds cases cited by the debtors do not exist (a New Mexico and a Delaware citation, In re Steward) while addressing the unauthorized practice of law; no AI term anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1945/Young_v._Happy_Money_USA_8_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): James v. National Board of Osteopathic Examiners (S.D. Ind., 2026 WL 772373): the court is unable to locate a cited case (Knakmuhs; the citation belongs to a different case) and warns that future non-existent cases will draw sanctions; no AI term anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1763/James_v._Board_USA_19_March_2026.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Stanford v. Vida (W.D. Tex., 4 Sep 2025): two cited cases the court determined "do not exist" and "fabricated quotations"; filing restrictions; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/896/Stanford_v._Vida_USA_4_September_2025.pdf · pp. 1-12

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): McMurry v. Neiders Co. (W.D. Wash., 14 Aug 2025): footnote says the plaintiff cites a non-existent case and admonishes him about accuracy under Rule 11; no AI term anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1452/McCurry_v._Neiders_USA_14_August_2025.pdf · pp. 1-7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Villavicencio v. Judge Mingo (S.D. Ohio, 7 Oct 2025): the magistrate finds "several of Plaintiff's state-law citations are also incorrect or do not exist" and cautions about sanctions; no mention of AI anywhere in the report. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/854/JOSE_VILLAVICENCIO_Plaintiff_v_JUDGE_STEPHANIE_MINGO · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): K.C. v. D.R. (Tex. App., 30 Apr 2026): appellant cites nonexistent cases (Walker v. State, J.B.G.) and a quote that does not exist; the court treats them under the briefing rule; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2115/KC_Appellant_v_DR_Appellee_USA_30_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-11

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Kennon v. Ashley (court of 18 Feb 2026): plaintiff's motion is "littered with citations to nonexistent quotes" from a deposition; no word about AI anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1557/Kennon_v._Ashley_USA_18_February_2026.pdf · pp. 1-7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Swincher v. Fay Servicing (W.D. Ky., 10 Nov 2025): the court finds the plaintiffs cited nonexistent case law and warns of sanctions; the only AI wording is a sentence quoted from Buckner v. Hilton Global about AI ghostwriting in general, not attributed to this filing; the plaintiffs say an online attorney prepared their reply. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1020/Swincher_v._Fay_Servicing_USA_10_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Kuigoua v. Park (Cal. Ct. App., 10 Nov 2025): dismisses the appeal because the brief relies on authorities that "are nonexistent" and "do not exist at all"; the opinion never mentions AI (AI terms appear only in the Westlaw search query header). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1019/Kuigoua_v_Park_USA_10_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): L.A. Housing Outreach v. Medoff (Cal. Ct. App., 17 Dec 2025): the court strikes the reply brief and sanctions counsel because most of its citations do not stand for what they are cited for; counsel says she did not review the brief; the only AI wording is a parenthetical describing another case (Noland), not this brief. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1255/LA_Housing_Outreach_v._Mdeoff_17_December_2025.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Lagac v. Capital One (C.D. Cal., 22 May 2026): nonexistent or misquoted authorities; the only generic sanction language (quoting Dillard v. CBS Studios) never mentions AI; no mention of AI in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2248/Lagac_v_Capital_One_NA_USA_22_May_2026.pdf · pp. 1-3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Licksun v. Occupiers of Lot No. 552 (HK District Court, [2025] HKDC 1287): 6 of 7 authorities the plaintiff cited do not exist ("Suspicious Authorities"), the plaintiff abandons them and says it did not intend to mislead; the judgment never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1279/Licksun_Hong_Kong_8_August_2025.pdf · pp. 1-11

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Lin v. Leal (Cal. Super. Ct., 23 Oct 2025): the order finds a cited case ("Mutual Benefit") does not exist, other citations improper, and sets an OSC re sanctions under CCP 128.7; the only AI wording is Westlaw's "Editor's Note" (publisher, "likely generated by AI tools", "not attributable to the Court"), not the court's text. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2352/25_-_Lin_v_Leal.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review), muestra 5: MacEachern-Flatt v UHN (HRTO 2125): the decision says only that the cited case law 'does not appear to exist' (para 18) and never mentions AI. The court does not find that AI was used, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1728/MacEachern-Flatt-v.-University-Health-Network-2025- · para 18

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): David v. George Chiala Farms (N.D. Cal., 7 Nov 2025): the court admonishes counsel for a nonexistent case (Morgan v. State of California) and a misquoted statute and elsewhere for a nonexistent case by CDC's counsel; no mention of AI anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/992/David_v._George_Chiala_Farms_USA_7_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-29

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Martin v. Taylor County (N.D. Tex., 6 Mar 2024): order noting a "non-existent passage" from a Supreme Court case and, in n. 3, that citing non-existent case law might warrant sanctions; no mention of AI anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/372/Martin_v._Taylor_County_N.D._Texas_USA_March_6_2024. · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Matter of Logmet LLC, GAO B-423066.2 (15 Apr 2026): advises the protester that "citations to non-existent authority may result in sanctions"; the decision never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2020/LOGMET_LLC_885266.pdf · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Meyer v. Castroville State Bank (Tex. App., 22 Apr 2026): the court notes two non-existent cases and quotes a general passage on fictitious citations, declines sanctions; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2016/Meyer_v._Castrovill_USA_22_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Lin v. Shim (S.D.N.Y., 6 Mar 2026): the court says a cited case ("Hernandez v. Spitzer") does not exist; no AI-related word in the opinion (the only hit is Westlaw's generic editor's note about invalid citations). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1682/Lin_v._Shim_USA_6_March_2026.pdf · pp. 1-10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Nichols v. Walmart (S.D. Ga., 23 Apr 2025): dismissal and Rule 11 sanction for "fake case citations" in her motion to disqualify; she gave no explanation of their origin and the court does not mention AI (text layer has no word spacing; checked on the space-stripped text). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/349/Nichols_v._Walmart_Inc._S.D._Georgia_April_23_2025.p · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Rosario v. Liberty Mutual (E.D. Pa., 13 Feb 2026): the court raises AI in a footnote and expressly declines to find AI abuse ("old-fashioned lack of diligence"). The court never attributes the miscitations to AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1531/NYDIA_ROSARIO_v_LIBERTY_MUTUAL_PERSONAL_INSURANCE_C · pp. 1-7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ontario Securities Commission v. Alli (Ont. CMT, 20 May 2026): the panel finds Alli's submissions on settlement privilege inaccurate, with misstatements and "at least one" case that could not be located; no mention of AI anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2224/Ontario-Securities-Commission-v-Alli-2026-ONCMT-21. · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC (Corte d'Appello di Messina, 9 Jan 2026), Italian: the appellant says the first-instance judge cited "giurisprudenza inesistente" copied from an IUSLETTER article without verification; the order never mentions artificial intelligence. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2619/2026-01-11_APPELLO_MESSINA.pdf · pp. 1-8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Warthen v. Barclays (D. Md., 13 Jul 2026): the court warns about citing a nonexistent rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(5)); the only AI word is "AI-hallucinated" inside a parenthetical quotation of another case (Tafah) in a string cite, never tied to this plaintiff. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2611/Warthen_v._Barclays_Delaware.pdf · pp. 1-15

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Pettit v. Allina Health System (D. Minn., 30 Jan 2025): a fees and discovery order and R&R; the only AI wording is plaintiff's own argument that "[artificial intelligence] and brief banks" make motions to compel templated, and a company name (Datascore-Ai) in a citation. No citation is attributed to AI by the court. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2103/Pettit_v_Allina_Health_System_USA_30_January_2025.p · pp. 1-26

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Pleasant v. Burns (N.D. Ala., 8 Apr 2026): the court sanctions filings with nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations and misstated holdings under Rule 11; the two-page order never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1946/Pleasant_v._Burns_USA_8_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Polanco v. Brooklyn Rose LLC (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 16 Jun 2026): the only AI wording is the reporter's Editor's Note that the document discusses unverified citations likely generated by AI tools and that they are not attributable to the Court; the court's own text never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2589/Polanco_v_Brooklyn_Rose_LLC_USA_16_June_2026.pdf · pp. 1-3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Protection de la jeunesse (C.S. Québec, 2 Jun 2026), French: the child's counsel says the mother's brief contains "fausses citations jurisprudentielles"; the court condemns fictitious excerpts of case law; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2369/2026qccs1966.pdf · pp. 1-22

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): R v. Wallace (N.B. K.B., 20 Nov 2025): a criminal ruling (vehicle with "fictitious plates"); no mention of AI anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1739/R-v-Wallace-2025-NBKB-268.pdf · pp. 1-20

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Massetti v. Greenspring Capital Management (S.D. Fla., 26 Jan 2026, 3-page order): Greenspring argues sanctions for nonexistent authorities in the amended complaint; the court notes the plaintiff corrected them; no mention of AI anywhere. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1496/RALPH_J_MASSETTI_JR_Plaintiff_v_GREENSPRING_CAPITAL · pp. 1-3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Grant v. Amazon.com Services (5th Cir., 25 Jun 2026): the only trace is that the brief cites "a nonexistent case" in support of the IIED and defamation claims; no mention of AI anywhere. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2475/Grant_v._Amazon_USA_25_June_2026.pdf · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Rivard v. Dept. of Corrections (Vt., 10 Dec 2025): the court finds a non-existent citation (Paige v. State) and a mismatched pin cite; the court's own text never mentions AI (the Westlaw "Editor's Note" on AI is the publisher's, not the court's). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2342/15_-_Rivard_v_Dept_of_Corrections.pdf · pp. 1-8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Rivera-Carrasquillo v. United States (D.P.R., habeas): the court notes a non-existent quote attributed to United States v. Paniagua-Ramos and a misread Smith opinion in the motion; no AI term anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1028/Rivera-Carrasquillo_v._USA_USA_7_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Reed v. Community Health Care (W.D. Wash., 14 Oct 2025): the court notes plaintiffs' "significant pattern of using fictitious cases" and orders a certification of every cited decision; no mention of AI anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/874/Reed_v._Community_USA_14_October_2025.pdf · pp. 1-21

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Lafayette v. Blueprint Basketball (Vt. Super., 26 Apr 2024): the plaintiff did not provide cited cases when ordered, "This suggests that the cases do not exist"; order to show cause for citing cases that "apparently do not exist"; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1109/Lafayette_v._Blueprint_Basketball_USA_26_April_2024 · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Roman v. County of Los Angeles (Cal. Super., 27 Aug 2025): plaintiff's opposition cites authority that "does not exist" (Fairchild, Corgain); only the Westlaw Editor's Note, which is not the court's text, says "likely generated by AI tools", while the order itself never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2355/28_-_Roman_v_County_of_Los_Angeles.pdf · pp. 1-10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Sanchez v. Chedraui USA (Cal. Super. Ct., 6 Nov 2025): the court issues an order to show cause why plaintiff's counsel should not be sanctioned for a fabricated case citation (Briganti v. Chow King); the only AI wording is the Westlaw editor's note, which says it is not attributable to the Court. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2347/20_-_Sanchez_v_Chedraui_USA_Inc.pdf · pp. 1-6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Serafin v. U.S. Department of State (E.D. Mo., 16 Oct 2025): the court notes two cited cases do not exist (Lazo v. Blinken, Flores-Torres v. DHS) and warns about Rule 11; the opinion never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/878/Serafin_v._Rubio_USA_16_October_2025.pdf · pp. 1-20

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Shaw v. City of Portola (E.D. Cal., 14 Apr 2026): the court finds a nonexistent case (Boyd v. City of San Diego) cited five times; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1993/Shaw_v._Portola_USA_15_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Small Moves Canada v. Garner (BC CRT, 18 Nov 2025): small claims decision; no mention of AI anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1125/Small_Moves_Canada_Inc._v._Garner_Canada_18_Novembe · pp. 1-10

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Nev., 13 Jan 2026): footnote 2 says several authorities "do not say what petitioner asserts or do not appear to exist at all"; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1389/Smith_v_Eighth_Judicial_District_Court_in_and_for_C · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): South Central Ohio Job & Family Services v. Mason (Ohio Ct. App., 25 Nov 2025): the only legal authority cited "is non-existent" (2016-Ohio-2987 is State v. Hari, not Nolan); no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1152/Robson_v._Mason_USA_25_November_2025.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): State v. Alqahtani (Ohio Ct. App., 10 Apr 2026): the court strikes a filing with fabricated and misplaced authority; no mention of AI anywhere. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1983/Ohio_v._Alqahtani_USA_10_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): SWSZ Holding v. SZ Global (Delaware, 27 May 2026): the court denied a pro se movant's first motion because it cited nonexistent authorities (it could not locate language from seven cases); the order never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2239/SWSZ_Holding_Inc._v._SZ_Global_Inc._v._Wich_et_al._ · pp. 1-6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Burches v. Equifax Information Services (E.D. La., 11 May 2026): the court addresses repeated briefs with fabricated, inaccurate or unverifiable citations; no mention of AI anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2146/Burches_v._Equifax_USA_11_May_2026.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): T.M. v. M.M. (Ind. Ct. App., 24 Sep 2025): lists ten defects including authorities that "do not exist" and reminds the pro se appellant of the standard; the memorandum decision never mentions AI (AI terms appear only in the Westlaw search query header). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/841/TM_Appellant-Respondent_v_MM_Appellee-Petitioner.pdf · pp. 1-8

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): USA v. Sethi (E.D. Tex., 28 Aug 2025): order on a pro se defendant's Rule 33 motion, extensions and standby counsel; no mention of AI or of fabricated citations in the court's text (AI terms appear only in the Westlaw search query header). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/752/UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERICA_v_SAMEER_PRAVEEN_SETHI_USA_ · pp. 1-7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Van Deel v. A-Plus Contracting (Mo. Ct. App., 5 May 2026): footnote notes the appellant's brief has "multiple inaccurate or nonexistent caselaw citations"; no mention of AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2112/Van_Deel_v_A-Plus_Contracting_LLC_USA_5_May_2026.pd · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): VGH Baden-Wurttemberg 3 S 1012/25 (8 Jul 2025): dismisses the appeals as inadmissible and adds that it is odd the appellants "quote" many untraceable decisions, asserting appellate case law that, as far as can be seen, does not exist; the decision never mentions AI (KI). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1199/VGH_3_S_1012_25_Germany_2025_UWvz3ZB.pdf · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ward v. Amazon.com Services (W.D. Wash., 3 Apr 2026): the court warns the plaintiff that further fictitious legal authority may draw an order to show cause, citing United States v. Haynes on nonexistent case law; no AI term anywhere in the order. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1936/Ward_v._Amazon_USA_3_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-15

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Gurri Rubio v. Mullin (D. Md., 1 May 2026): the court finds nonexistent quotations and warns they may be sanctionable; no mention of AI anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2097/Rubio_v._Mullin_USA_1_May_2026.pdf · pp. 1-14

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Mbow v. Mackert (D. Md., 28 Jan 2026): the court orders counsel to explain fictitious cases and misrepresented holdings; no mention of AI (the only 'generated' hit is the ECF page-number footnote). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1420/Mbow_v._Mackert_USA_28_January_2026.pdf · pp. 1-13

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Rios v. Puente Hills Ford (17 Feb 2026): no AI-related word anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1536/Rios_v._Puente_Hills_Ford_USA_17_February_2026.pdf · pp. 1-5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ave Capital Group v. Strum (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 9 Feb 2026): the only AI mention is the Westlaw editor's note ('likely generated by AI tools ... not attributable to the Court'); the court's own text never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2335/08_-_Ave_Capital_Group_LLC_v_Strum.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Jackson v. BOK Financial (2) (N.D. Okla. 26 Aug 2025): order on motions to disqualify counsel and strike; no mention of AI anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/836/Jackson_v._BOK_Financial_Corp_USA_29_September_2025. · pp. 1-12

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Jackson v. BOK Financial (3) (N.D. Okla. 24 Feb 2026): petitioner's objection has non-existent citations; the only AI mention is a parenthetical describing another case (Moore v. City of Del City). The court never attributes this filing's citations to AI (borderline).. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1566/Jackson_v._BOK_USA_24_February_2026.pdf · pp. 5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Jennings v. Vandergriff Honda USA (Tex. App., 28 May 2026): the court finds the brief cites cases that do not exist (In re Katherine S., 118 S.W.3d 743) and cites no record; no mention of AI anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2277/Christian_Lavell_Jennings_v._Vandergriff_Honda_USA_ · pp. 1-12

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Dhuruvasangary v. TSCC No. 1532 (ONCAT 2025-115): the tribunal says the cited cases do not exist; no mention of AI in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1723/Dhuruvasangary-v.-Toronto-Standard-Condominium-Corp · pp. 1-9

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): W.D. Mo. 4:25-cv-00023-RK show-cause order, 22 Jun 2026: no AI term; asks how counsel researched and validated citations (pp. 6-7). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2506/EUPHORIC_LLC_v_WESTPORT_COMMUNITY_USA_22_June_2026. · pp. 1-7 (whole order)

AI tool

The Arizona Court of Appeals decision never mentions artificial intelligence or any AI product (searched AI, artificial, ChatGPT, generative: no hits); it finds 'defective legal citations, including fabricated reporter and pin citations' (para 49) and refers counsel to the State Bar (para 50 onward). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference, not the court's.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2497/FHMC_et_al._v._BLUE_CROSS_USA_22_June_2026.pdf · paras 49-55, Ariz. Ct. App.

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): D085374 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 22 Oct 2025): court cannot locate Bledsoe v. Jackman cite (fn 5); only a generic caution about AI in same footnote, no finding or suspicion about Ozaeta's brief (borderline). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/913/Guardian_Piaza_dOro_v._Ward_Ozaeta_USA_22_October_20 · pp. 5-6

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Holstein v. Holstein (Ind. Ct. App. 16 Jun 2026): non-existent authorities in the father's original brief; sanctions declined; AI appears only as a generic warning and a cited article. The court never attributes this brief's citations to AI (borderline).. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2516/Jon_Hansford_Holstein_v._Lacey_Lawana_Holstein_USA_ · pp. 16-17

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 1:25-cv-1057 (N.D. Ohio 25 Mar 2026): court notes fake cases in Lu's briefs (p.2) but never ties them to AI; only recites HP's 'apparent reliance on generative AI' in fn 3 as a deposition-format reason (borderline). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1830/LU_v._Capital_One_USA_25_March_2025.pdf · pp. 2,5

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 5th Cir. 25-60490: only 'In re Reed ... the case does not exist'; no AI term. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2068/Okorie_v._Wells_Fargo_USA_29_April_2026.pdf · p. 6, n. 4 (whole opinion pp. 1-6)

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 1 CA-CV 25-0491 PB (Ariz. App. 5 Mar 2026): 25 made-up/erroneous citations, appeal dismissed; read pp.1-2 in full, no mention of AI/hallucination anywhere. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1611/In_the_Matter_of_the_Estate_of_KUERSCHNER_USA_5_Mar · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank (C.D. Cal., 25 Mar 2026): the court could not locate a case matching the cited description; the only AI-adjacent text is the Westlaw editor's note about invalid citations, no mention of AI by the court. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1927/Jared_Ashcraft_v_First-Citizens_Bank_and_Trust_Comp · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Baker v. Baker (Pa. Super. 7 Jan 2026): the court observes the father's cited cases 'appear to be fabricated'; no mention of AI anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1296/Baker_v._Baker_USA_7_January_2026.pdf · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Krzeminski v. McQuillan (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6 Jul 2026): the court finds plaintiff's caselaw incorrectly cited or nonexistent and declines sanctions; the only AI wording is a quotation from another decision and Westlaw's editor's note (not the court's). The court never attributes the plaintiff's citations to AI (borderline).. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2583/Kevin_Krzeminski_v_Janine_McQuillan_USA_6_July_2026 · pp. 3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Khan v. Howard County BAP (Md. App. 20 Jul 2026): the court strikes briefs with citations that do not exist or do not support the propositions; its own text never mentions AI (the only mention is Westlaw's editor's note, not the court's). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2677/LUBNA_KHAN_v_HOWARD_COUNTY_BOARD_OF_APPEALS_ET_AL_U · pp. 1-7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): [2024] TASSC 35: generic hallucination warning (para 54), never says AI produced the mischaracterised/non-existent cases. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/552/Lakaev_v_McConkey_Australia_12_July_2024.pdf · para 54-57, p. 11 (of 15)

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): App. Div. 2d Dept No. 2025-02380: order to show cause on 'fabricated and/or erroneous legal authority'; no AI term. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2167/Landberg_v._City_of_New_York_USA_20_May_2026.pdf · p. 1 (whole order)

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Landmark Development Group v. Lupardus: no AI-related word anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1525/Landmark_v._Lupardus_USA_13_February_2026.pdf · pp. 1-11

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Ahmed v. Powell (Ontario LRB, 9 Jun 2025): the board notes a cited case 'does not appear to exist'; no mention of AI in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1720/Noura-Ahmed-v-Troy-Powell-2025-CanLII-62624-ON-LRB. · pp. 1-9

AI tool

The plaintiff's filing carries links with 'utm_source=chatgpt.com', which the court transcribes and treats as evidence that the text came from ChatGPT (considerandos 4.2 to 4.5); the party did not acknowledge it, so the label rests on that trace in the filing, not on an admission.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1477/Booking_Juz_Civil___Sanci%C3%B3n_IA.pdf · considerandos 1 and 4.2-4.5, resolutions II.a and IV (unpaginated text)

AI tool

The ONCAT decision never mentions AI, ChatGPT or artificial intelligence (full text searched); it only says the cited 'Wu v TSCC 1754, 2021 ONCAT 63' is not an actual case (para 20). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference, as with Rajabi and FHMC. The CAD 1,500 costs (para 34) are for losing and an unnecessary hearing, not for the citation.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1701/Pellegrino-v.-York-Condominium-Corporation-No.-486- · paras 20 and 31-35 (PDF pp. 5-6, 9)

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): J&K and Ladakh HC CM(M) 191/2026: fake cites are in the trial court's order; AI appears only as general guidance (para 73, 75(i)). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2324/Woodland_House_School_v._Malik_India_6_June_2026.pd · pp. 22-24, paras 70-75

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 8:25-cv-01077-TJS (D. Md.): show cause order for fictitious citations in motion to dismiss; order never mentions AI. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1683/PRM_Group_v._Paralegal_Bootcamp_USA_16_December_202 · pp. 1-3

AI tool

The decision never mentions artificial intelligence or any AI product (searched 'intelligence artificielle', 'IA', ChatGPT: no hits); it only says two references cited by the tenant are 'introuvable' (notes 2 and 3). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference. The CAD 3,000 in the text is the tenant's relocation indemnity (para 61, p. 5), not a sanction.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1715/Rajabi-c.-Lassalle-2024-QCTAL-35477.pdf · notes 2-3 and paras 61 and 65 (PDF p. 5)

AI tool

The court records that Cole 'provides the Court with a screenshot of an "AI Overview" output, presumably from a Google search' as the support for the non-existent authority.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2273/Cole_v._Midland_State_Bank_USA_1_June_2026.pdf · PDF p. 5 of 7

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Sentencia 126/2025 (TSJ Canarias, 31 Dec 2025): the court rejects a quoted passage attributed to STS 494/2020; the decision never mentions AI (the 'intelig-' hits are 'más inteligente'). The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1365/sentencia-recurso-140-25-seudonimizada-3.pdf · pp. 1-13

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): St-Roch c. Andritz Hydro Canada (TAT Québec, 15 Dec 2025): the tribunal notes a cited decision does not exist (para. 46); no mention of AI in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1777/St-Roch-c.-Andritz-Hydro-Canada-inc.-2025-QCTAT-513 · pp. 1-20

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): STC17832-2025 rad. 11001-02-03-000-2025-05001-00 (Corte Suprema Colombia): tribunal order built on non-existent STC precedents; AI mentioned only as Constitutional Court T-323/2024 doctrine, not attributed to the tribunal. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1008/STC_17832-2025.pdf · pp. 1-16

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-03398 Doc 72: only the generic sentence 'litigants who ... hallucinate citations may be sanctioned'; never says a tool produced Hobbs's citations. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1361/Hobbs_v._Goncharko_USA_16_January_2026.pdf · p. 2 (whole memorandum pp. 1-9)

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 3D25-0474 (Fla. 3d DCA 27 Aug 2025): fake cases (Hernandez v. Gilbert, Scott v. State); court uses 'hallucinated' only as general problem framing, never says AI/generative tool used by Takefman; borderline. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/756/Takefman_v._Pickleball_USA_27_August_2025.pdf · pp. 1-4

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): 2:25-cv-03231-HG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.): pro se plaintiff cited nonexistent case GAI Consultants v. Homestead and fake quotes; warning only, no AI link. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2099/Norris_v._JP_Morgan_USA_May_2026.pdf · pp. 13-15

AI tool

Law Society Gazette, 29 May 2023: the judge 'quizzed the litigant in person, who admitted they had asked the AI tool ChatGPT to find cases that could prove their argument'. Press report (no published ruling), so the label rests on the Gazette's account of the party's admission.

Primary source: www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lip-presents-false-citations-to-court-after-asking-chatgpt/51161 · paragraphs 1 and 3 of the article

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Armstrong v. Milwaukee (E.D. Wis. 11 May 2026): County's reply brief included a fictitious case; court says it has no more information as to why; no AI mention. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2147/Armstrong_v._Milwaukee_USA_11_May_2026.pdf · pp. 3

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Minn. Ct. App. A25-1019, 2 Feb 2026: AI only as background (expulsion over AI on an exam; relator's allegation about exam questions); the citation remark (p. 1 para 4) names no AI cause. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1532/Yang_v_University_of_Minnesota.pdf · pp. 1-2 (whole order)

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Zhang v. Zhang (22 Apr 2026): no AI-related word anywhere in the decision. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2088/Zhang_v._Zhang_USA_22_April_2026.pdf · pp. 1-2

AI tool

Model-assisted reading of the primary document (not human legal review): Zlatkin v. Gladwin County (E.D. Mich., 20 Feb 2026): the court finds a 'fake authority' (Wells v. UPS Airlines) and admonishes against 'nonexistent authority'; no mention of AI anywhere in the opinion. The court never attributes the filing's citations to AI, so 'Implied' is the aggregator's inference and the record states no tool.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1594/Zlatkin_et_al_v._Butman_Township_of_et_al_USA_20_Fe · pp. 1-12

AI tool

The opinion never mentions artificial intelligence, generative tools or hallucination (searched AI, artificial, generat; the only hit is 'autogenerated' captions of a video). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference, so the record states no tool rather than an implied one.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1652/Brown_v._STA_USA_10_March_2026.pdf · whole opinion (87 paragraphs); footnote 4 (p. 13)

AI tool

The court itself finds that the pro se plaintiffs' papers were machine-generated and that 'Plaintiffs' use of ChatGPT resulted in legal incoherence, hallucinated citations, irrelevant arguments, and unnecessary expenditures of time'; it also says 'This dispute reveals, yet again, the improvident use of ChatGPT and other forms of artificial intelligence'. It is a finding of the court, not a quotation of a party (the plaintiffs told the court they did not rely solely on AI).

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2343/16_-_Cappucci_v_Maupin_Cox_And_Legoy_LLP.pdf · Order Granting Special Motion to Dismiss, 2025 WL 4662709 (Nev. Dist. Ct., Washoe County, No. CV25-02309, 30 Nov 2025), footnote 2 / analysis item 2 (PDF p. 4) and analysis item 4 (*5, PDF p. 5)

AI tool

The minute order never mentions AI or artificial intelligence; it only says the cited authority does not exist or was misreported (p. 2). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/485/Churchill_Funding_v._732_Indiana_SC_Cal_USA_31_Octob · whole minute order (4 pages; searched AI, artificial, generative)

AI tool

The order never mentions AI, artificial intelligence or hallucination (full text searched). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2758/Cole_v._Lee_2026_IL_App_1st_252223-U.pdf · whole order (5 pages)

AI tool

The order never mentions artificial intelligence, generative tools or hallucination (searched the text layer and the OCR); it only says the cited case 'Bolin v. Story' is nonexistent and that the Court had already warned the plaintiff. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/984/Sifuentes_v._Christian_Brothers_Automative_USA_6_Nov · whole order (2 pages), footnote 1 (p. 2); W.D. Mich. No. 1:23-cv-904, signed 6 November 2025

AI tool

Counsel's declaration (Dkt. 13 ¶ 5), as recounted by the court, says legal interns used Google Gemini to generate text used in the filings and that it fabricated the quotes.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2255/El_bitar_v._Wamsley_USA_2_June_2026.pdf · W.D. Wash. order of 2 Jun 2026 as published at the source URL: “a group of legal interns” assigned to research “had used Google Gemini to generate text used in the filings”

AI tool

The judgment never mentions AI or artificial intelligence (searched). It finds five cited authorities non-existent or not supporting the stated propositions and reminds counsel of the duty 'to use technology, conduct legal research, and prepare court documents competently' (p. 9), a general duty, not a finding about a tool. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/757/FAM_vs_ZAM_2025_TZHC_3948_15_July_2025.pdf · pp. 6-10 and the whole judgment (PC Matrimonial Appeal No. 212 of 2025, 15 July 2025)

AI tool

The opinion (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist., F089316, filed 28 May 2026) never mentions AI, artificial intelligence or hallucination (full text of 10 pages searched). It says counsel's brief contained 'fictitious caselaw' and the trial court relied on 'a nonexistent case'. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/F089316.PDF · whole opinion (10 pages); introduction and sections on the fictitious case and Family Code 6203

AI tool

The judgment says the list of authorities was generated with 'an AI tool incorporated in the legal practice management software' the solicitor uses and does not name LEAP; the upstream label comes from outside the judgment.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/361/In_Re_Dayal_Australia_August_27_2024.pdf · [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166, paras 1 and 8 (tool within the practice management software)

AI tool

The decision never mentions artificial intelligence, AI tools or generative technology (searched AI, artificial, chatgpt, generative; the only 'online' hit is about EI claims). Paras 10-15 say the cited cases 'do not appear to exist' and the tribunal cannot consider them; 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference, so no tool is stated.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1747/JF-v-Canada-Employment-Insurance-Commission-2025-SS · paras 10-15 and the whole decision (2025 SST 1390)

AI tool

The decision never mentions artificial intelligence (paras 1-17 read on the page images); para 12 says only that 'the three cases referred to by the applicant do not exist' and will get no weight. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1719/Lakhanpal-v.-Avis-Budget-Group-Inc.-2025-HRTO-1410. · whole decision (6 pages; scanned, read by OCR and the page images of pp. 1-5), paras 1-17; HRTO file 2023-54963-1, 4 June 2025

AI tool

The order never mentions AI or artificial intelligence (searched the full text); it speaks of 'fabricated' and 'manufactured' authorities and rejects an innocent-mistake explanation. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/338/Newbern_v._Desoto_ND_Mississippi_USA_May_12_2025.pdf · whole order (12 pages)

AI tool

Para 10: counsel 'does not claim that these are inventions of an AI tool' (the judge only compares with Mata v. Avianca) and he says he wrote the 'summaries' himself after reading the decisions. The court does not find AI use, so 'implied AI' is not backed by the text.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/463/Nitzan_v._Adar_BaEmakim_Properties_Ltd_Israel_August · paras 3, 9, 10

AI tool

The Beschluss never mentions artificial intelligence or any tool; it only calls the citations 'Fehlzitate' that cannot be found. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2928/55ea1bb2-0c67-4731-8e65-0d75ddb8ad0c_C3aj4xa.pdf · whole Beschluss (6 pages; searched KI, kuenstliche Intelligenz, generativ, ChatGPT, Halluzination)

AI tool

The court records an admission on behalf of the applicant's representative that the case-law research was the product of a Google search and the AI summary generated by that search, which produced incorrect citations.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1852/Pasuengos_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenshi · Federal Circuit and Family Court judgment of 3 Feb 2026 as published at the source URL: “the case law research had been the product of a Google search and the AI summary generated by that Google search”

AI tool

The decision never mentions AI or artificial intelligence; it calls the citations misleading or incorrect and refers counsel to the State Bar (para 27). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1134/Pineda_v._Campos_USA_December_2025.pdf · whole decision (searched AI, artificial, generative, ChatGPT); paras 23-29

AI tool

Footnote 24 says the plaintiff 'again improperly used AI while preparing his filings': the court affirms AI use but names no tool, so the tool is Unidentified rather than Implied.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2190/Burches_v._Equifax_USA_20_May_2026.pdf · footnote 24 (p. 3)

AI tool

The Upper Tribunal recorded that the solicitor inadvertently used the AI Mode of a Google search and found it probable that this produced the non-existent case Horleston; ChatGPT was not used for the grounds.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1565/Munir_v._SSHD_UK_17_November_2025.pdf · paras 16-17

AI tool

The court never says AI was used. Its only reference is hypothetical (p. 6): preparing the cassation complaint 'with artificial intelligence technologies' is no excuse, because the party answers for the generated text (art. 9(2) APK RF). 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2172/A27-7831-2025_20260514_Opredelenie.pdf · pp. 5-7 (reasoning on the fabricated case law) and the operative part

AI tool

The order identifies the tool as the firm's in-house platform MX2.law and states in footnote 3 that plaintiffs' attorneys did not appear to have used ChatGPT, so ChatGPT is not established by the record.

Primary source: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wyd.64014/gov.uscourts.wyd.64014.181.0_1.pdf · Part III and footnote 3, p. 4 of 17

AI tool

Plaintiff's counsel told the court he relied on 'summaries' generated by Google that he was 'not even aware' were AI-generated; the court records that the two fictitious citations came from those Google summaries and treats the other eight mischaracterizations as possibly from the same source or human overstatement.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2266/Zhang_v._NPR_USA_18_December_2026.pdf · D.D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00699-BAH, ECF 16 (memorandum opinion, 18 Dec 2025), pp. 37-39 of the filing

AI tool

The order never mentions artificial intelligence or any AI product (searched AI, artificial, ChatGPT, generative, hallucinat: no hits); it only calls one quotation 'apparently fabricated' and notes it could not be found in a Google or Westlaw search. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1036/MacNae_v._Arag_Insurance_Company_13_November_2025.p · whole order (W.D. Wash., 13 Nov 2025)

AI tool

The order never mentions artificial intelligence (searched the full text): it says only that the citations 'included nonexistent quotes, misstated the holding, did not support the premise' and cautions the plaintiff to exercise greater diligence. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1256/Wireless_Investors_v._Semtech_In_USA_18_December_20 · whole order (10 pages), footnote 2 (p. 4), closing paragraph (p. 10); D. Ariz. No. CV-25-02633-PHX-DJH, Doc. 24, 18 December 2025

AI tool

The opinion never mentions AI or artificial intelligence (searched); it only says the cited cases do not exist. 'Implied' AI use is the aggregator's inference.

Primary source: www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3047/Woodley_K._v._Gottschall_J._USA_1_Septmber_2026.pdf · whole opinion; footnotes 1 and 2