31 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Christopher A. Ambrose v. Bandy X. Lee

Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Tyler v. Tyler to argue personal (in-hand) service is required in defamation actions; court found the citation inapposite and noted the misstatement. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited and relied on Martin v. Hearst Corp. and Hustler v. Falwell to support striking IIED claims; court found those authorities misread or inapplicable. || Misrepresented: Other | Court identified broader 'hallucinated legal propositions' in the briefing (unverified or severely misstated legal rules) and warned that such AI-assisted misstatements risk Rule 11 sanctions.

Court: D. ConnecticutParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: D. Connecticut

30 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Jacobs v. Payward, Inc.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "DOE V. SMITH, No. 3:22-cv-01987 (D. Conn. 2023)", which the Court determined to be a hallucinated (nonexistent) case citation and flagged as undermining the credibility of the filings.

Court: D. ConnecticutParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: D. Connecticut

27 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Lauren K. Morgan v. Michael P. Whitticom

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited 'Douchette v. Doucette, 50 Conn. App. 541, 544-45 (1998)' for the proposition that property distributions may be modified; court found the reporter citation corresponds to a different opinion (Glass v. Peter Mitchell Construction Leasing and Development Corporation, 50 Conn. App. 539 (1998)) and concluded the citation is an AI-generated hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple other fictitious or inapplicable cases and legal propositions in the defendant's motion (notably pages 2–3); court found most cited cases do not support the asserted propositions or do not exist.

Court: SC ConnecticutParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: SC Connecticut

01 JAN 2026 · Law / Act

Connecticut SB 5

Connecticut legislation addressing AI systems with obligations for deployers, developers, and distributors. This legislation has been signed into law.

Secondary evidenceGenerative AI ·Data Privacy & ProtectionIssuing institution: Issuing authority not identified

15 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Braica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a wholly fabricated quotation to this real case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Case cited to support Eighth Amendment application to probationers though Solem concerned incarceration and is not relevant here. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited to support Eighth Amendment argument despite Graham involving incarceration rather than probation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff misattributed a quotation to Moore and cited it in support of an Eighth Amendment argument though Moore addresses a Fourth Amendment apartment-search context. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Rochin to support an Eighth Amendment 'shocks the conscience' argument though Rochin concerns due process (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments) and is not on point. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Steffel but that case addresses First and Fourteenth Amendment issues, not the Eighth. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misstated the holding; Jones concerns GPS attachment to a vehicle, not to a person as plaintiff asserted. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Hamilton for a sovereign-immunity point but failed to note Hamilton dismissed negligence claims as barred by sovereign immunity. || Fabricated: Case Law | Entirely fabricated case; plaintiff supplied a citation string that corresponds to different cases with different names. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Fuller to suggest probationers have Eighth Amendment protections relevant here, but the case concerns prison housing classification and is not on point. || Fabricated: Case Law | Entirely fabricated case; the plaintiff cited 'State v. Kelleher' with citations that lead to unrelated real cases. || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Cited Quon without disclosing that the Ninth Circuit decision was explicitly reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court.

Court: D. ConnecticutParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: D. Connecticut

25 NOV 2025 · Court Case

Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language attributed to Levine v. Apker does not appear in that opinion and the case does not support the asserted proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Sierra quotation cited in the Motion was fabricated and does not exist in the Sierra opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Woodley v. Warden was cited as supporting a 'detainer-only bar' proposition the court found the case does not establish. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Perttu v. Richards was mischaracterized in substance and procedural posture relative to the petitioner's arguments. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Federal procedural rules (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Habeas Rule 7) were mischaracterized as authorizing a petitioner to unilaterally expand the record after judgment. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Rivers v. Guerrero and Mayle v. Felix were cited for relation-back/record-expansion propositions the Court found they do not support.

Court: D. ConnecticutParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: D. Connecticut

17 NOV 2025 · Court Case

Cojom v. Roblen

Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate case

Court: D. ConnecticutParty: Lawyer

Fine: 500 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: D. Connecticut

30 APR 2025 · Court Case

Moales v. Land Rover Cherry Hill

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976), and SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), to claim a federal common-law fiduciary duty supports a common-law private right of action; the Court held neither case supports that proposition and each addresses statutory securities laws. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff asserted a "federal common law of securities" as a basis for suit; the Court held no such federal common law exists and that securities law is governed by federal statutes. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff argued the Declaratory Judgment Act itself confers federal-question jurisdiction; the Court rejected this, noting the Act alone cannot create jurisdiction. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff claimed his accounting and fraudulent concealment claims are "federalized" via constructive trust principles and thus present a federally cognizable injury; the Court held these are state-law remedies/claims and do not create federal-question jurisdiction. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff contended that references to federal regulations and constitutional issues in his complaint establish a substantial federal question; the Court found those references not critical to resolving his claims and insufficient for federal jurisdiction.

Court: D. ConnecticutParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: D. Connecticut

06 JUN 2024 · Law / Act

An Act Authorizing And Adjusting Bonds Of The State And Concerning Provisions Related To State And Municipal Tax Administration, General Government And School Building Projects

Establishes an AI education tool pilot program for selected school districts, requiring compliance with privacy laws. Provides professional development for educators on using AI tools in classrooms, focusing on safety, benefits, and legal compliance.

Primary legal sourceFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+2Official source · cga.ct.gov ↗

06 JUL 2023 · Law / Act

Connecticut Substitute Senate Bill 1103

Requires state agencies to inventory and annually assess AI systems for discrimination risks, and mandates the development of AI governance policies by February 2024. Prohibits AI implementation without impact assessments and establishes a working group to recommend AI best practices and future legislation.

Primary legal sourceFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+18Official source · cga.ct.gov ↗

06 JUL 2023 · Law / Act

An Act Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Automated Decision-Making and Personal Data Privacy

Requires the state government to establish a public inventory of its use of artificial intelligence systems and to mandate impact assessments of its AI systems to prevent unlawful discrimination; establishes a working group to make recommendations on the state government's use of AI systems

Primary legal sourceFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+15Official source · cga.ct.gov ↗

27 JUN 2017 · Other

Connecticut (2017) SB 260

Establishes a pilot program for municipalities to allow testing of fully autonomous vehicles, requiring operator oversight and insurance. Prohibits testing on limited access highways. Forms a task force to study and recommend regulations for autonomous vehicles, with progress reporting mandated.

Official materialFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+2Official source · cga.ct.gov ↗