Georgia (US)

Slay v. Ross

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Waller v. Waller, 288 Ga. 164, 164-165 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; court noted as an example of AI-generated bogus citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Johnson v. Johnson, 286 Ga. 720, 721 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; cited as part of the pattern of hallucinated cases. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Durden v. Barron, 287 Ga. 858 (2010), which the court determined does not actually exist and flagged as a bogus citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited In re Waitz, 255 Ga. 474 (1986), which the court identified as another nonexistent authority in the brief.

Hicks v. City of Albany

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Knight v. Pierson, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 514 (1992), which the court could not locate; the City pointed out the inaccurate citation; counsel later admitted it was a nonexistent case likely produced by an AI platform and apologized. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited City of LaGrange v. Bolden, 261 Ga. 77 (1991), which the court could not locate; counsel admitted the citation was fake and believed it originated from an AI platform.

Tolbert v. State

Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Counsel relied on Laney for the proposition that a jury must be instructed on particular 'forcible felony,' but the Court noted Laney has been long overruled; citing it without caution was misleading. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellate brief attributed a purported general rule about accident to Sanders and Shaw, but the Court found neither case discusses accident nor contains the quoted language. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Harris v. State and Ross v. State as supporting insufficiency/self-defense propositions; the Court found these cases do not discuss those issues and do not support the cited propositions. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Counsel attributed a prosecutor remark in the brief that does not appear in the transcript; the Court compared the cited page and found the transcript contained different language. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Counsel attributed a direct quote to trial counsel about bifurcation that the Court could not find in the record; the Court found trial counsel's actual testimony was different.

William Parker v. Patrick "Pat" Labat, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found a cited case does not exist and counsel cited it as Eleventh Circuit authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court determined the language counsel attributed to the Fourth Circuit's Akers opinion does not appear in that decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found counsel quoted language that does not appear in Cutliffe and relied on that misquotation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted passage counsel attributed to Underwood does not appear in that opinion and the reliance was misplaced. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the passage counsel attributed to Randall does not appear in that opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded counsel misstated the holding of Reeves, treating an ADEA decision as establishing a constitutional right. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found counsel relied on Moss in support of a sheriff-deputy patronage argument, but Moss involved a firefighter and did not apply the Elrod-Branti analysis.

Medical Buyers Group LLC d/b/a Integrity v. Candice Pence, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Integrity cited Truist Bank v. Buerge, 2022 WL 17541757, at *6 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2022); court conducted independent search and could not locate the opinion; citation remained in Integrity's final amended response. || Fabricated: Case Law | Alleged citation Mission Critical Sols., LLC v. Connolly, 2021 WL 5985016 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2021) appeared in earlier filing but was not in the final amended response; court could not locate the opinion in its searches. || Fabricated: Case Law | Alleged citation 'Bliss, 279 Ga. App. At 807' appeared in earlier briefing and could not be located by the court's searches. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Integrity is alleged to have misrepresented the holding of Encompass Off. Sols., Inc. v. Ingenix, Inc.; the court read Encompass and found Defendants' allegation that the holding was misstated to be credible.

Ryan Andrew Nelson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff filed briefs containing multiple citations to nonexistent cases; the court and defendant identified these as fabricated case citations and the Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiff admitted filing them.

Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 1 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 2 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 3 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 4 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 5 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 6 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 7 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 8 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 9 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.

Nichols v. Walmart