How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A Western District of Oklahoma court denied a plaintiff’s motion in limine after finding that cited Tenth Circuit cases did not support the propositions for which they were cited — a pattern consistent with AI-generated mischaracterization. The court warned that such mischaracterizations, whether fr
Pro se plaintiffs in a cryptocurrency credit line dispute cited a repealed Indiana statute and a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case — prompting a judicial warning that AI may have assisted the filings. No sanctions, but the court explicitly invoked the Seventh Circuit’s AI accuracy warning.
Texas’s Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed a foreclosure judgment and separately identified that a citation in the appellants’ reply brief appeared to be a hallucinated case from this court that could not be located after extensive research.
Gregory Hardy filed the same AI-hallucinated motion to consolidate in Hardy v. Jones as he had in his other cases, repeating fake quotations from Berndt v. Tennessee and United States v. Frazier. The court struck the motion and issued a final warning: the next instance of fabricated citations or imp
A New York federal court sanctioned attorneys Levidow, Levidow & Oberman after they submitted a ChatGPT-generated brief citing six entirely fabricated cases, refused to acknowledge the errors when challenged, and then doubled down by filing fraudulent “confirmation” letters. The $5,000 sanction and
Ohio’s Eleventh District Court of Appeals sanctioned Attorney William Norman with a $2,000 fine, disciplinary referral, and a two-year court-notification requirement after his paralegal used ChatGPT to fabricate prosecutor quotes in a murder appeal, exposing a systemic failure in AI oversight.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Alberti v. Dc, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Fung v. Liberty, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Martin v. Ods, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Ryan Lee v. Capital, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.