Hallucinations & Sanctions

AI & Law, Hallucinations & Sanctions

Allen v. Western Governors University (Nevada 2026): Case Dismissed With Prejudice for Repeated AI Hallucinations Despite Warnings | Advocate Prakhar

A Nevada federal court dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s case with prejudice after he repeatedly submitted filings containing misrepresented and non-existent case law — even after multiple explicit Rule 11 warnings and the threat of case-dispositive sanctions. The court found no satisfactory explanatio

AI & Law, Hallucinations & Sanctions

Curry v. Capital One Finance (NC 2026): Pro Se FCRA Case Dismissed for AI-Generated Fictitious Statutory Provisions | Advocate Prakhar

A North Carolina federal court dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s FCRA case and denied leave to amend after her AI-generated briefs cited fictitious provisions of the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act and contained fabricated case citations — even after the court had already warned her it wou

AI & Law, Hallucinations & Sanctions

Hessert v. Hessert: Florida Appellate Court Catalogues AI-Hallucination Crisis, Finds 9 of 13 Citations Defective | Advocate Prakhar

In a Florida family law certiorari petition filed by a pro se litigant, the appellate court found that only 4 of 13 cited cases both existed and stood for the propositions asserted. Five cases were entirely fabricated; four real cases were cited for propositions they do not support. The court issued

AI & Law, Hallucinations & Sanctions

Amparo Trejo v. Amaya Hernandez (Maryland 2026): Appellate Court Opinion Itself Contains AI-Hallucinated Citations | Advocate Prakhar

In a striking reversal of the typical AI hallucination pattern, Maryland’s Appellate Court published a custody/SIJS opinion that itself contains citation references that are incorrect or do not exist — preserved in the record because they appear in the official court opinion. This case represents th

AI & Law, Hallucinations & Sanctions

Brownfield v. Cherokee County Schools: Oklahoma Court Sanctions Pro Se Plaintiff $7,032 for AI-Hallucinated Citations in Rule 11 Motion | Advocate Prakhar

A pro se plaintiff who used AI to draft a sanctions motion against a school district — without verifying the citations — was himself hit with $7,032 in sanctions when multiple fabricated citations were found in his filing, despite his completion of a Johns Hopkins AI ethics course.

What Our Clients Say

Chat on WhatsApp Call Now
Scroll to Top