31 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Ford v. Sherwin-Williams

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Clark v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, No. 21-2223-EFM, 2021 WL 4129476 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2021)', but the Westlaw number and case number pointed to unrelated authority; court concluded the citation/quotation was fictitious and likely AI-generated.

Court: D. KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

17 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Zesiger v. Kansas et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs filed motions containing inaccurate or nonexistent case citations; Magistrate Judge Schwartz warned Plaintiffs about filing motions that contain inaccurate or nonexistent case citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs inaccurately represented Magistrate Judge Schwartz's prior order by stating she 'already acknowledged conflict risk by denying severance without prejudice,' which the court found to be an inaccurate statement of that order.

Court: D. KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

25 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Howard v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2019 WL 1401348 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2019)', which the court found does not exist in Westlaw and for which no case number was provided.

Court: D. KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

18 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Kennon v. Ashley

False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | A block-quoted colloquy attributed to Ashley (including 'what he said, not what he did' and 'It was the language') is quoted as from Doc.55-1 at 33:2-11 but the court found those phrases do not appear at that location or elsewhere in the deposition. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff quotes exchanges purportedly showing Ashley answered 'No, not that I recall,' 'There was no contact,' and 'not threatening'; court found those quoted answers do not appear in the cited portions of Ashley's deposition (Doc.55-1 at 107:13-15,108:2-6,109:1-4). || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff attributes to Spencer a block quote denying any threatening behavior after watching bodycam ('No. I didn't.' / 'He didn't do that'); court found those phrases and the quoted exchange do not appear at Doc.55-2 80:4-6,81:1-3. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff quotes Ashley as saying he concluded disorderly conduct 'after reviewing the video footage' (Doc.55-1 at 151:4-9); court found the deposition does not contain 'footage' or the asserted colloquy at the cited location. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff attributes to Ashley a short exchange ('No.' / 'So why did you arrest him?' / 'He said, "Take me to jail." I said, "Okay."') citing Doc.55-1 at 116:12-17; court found the quoted exchange as presented does not exist and omits surrounding context that contradicts the representation. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff quotes a long passage allegedly from Doc.55-1 at 161:22-162:16; the court found the precise quoted passage does not exist at that citation. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff's brief quotes Ashley as admitting the arrest was based solely on 'language' and that there were 'no threatening gestures or movements'; court found the quoted phrase does not appear at Doc.55-1 33:7-11 or elsewhere in the deposition. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Brief

Court: D. KansasParty: Lawyer

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

13 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Edwards v. Scholtzs" to support that eviction terminated lease obligations; the court found no such Kansas authority and rejected the argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Wilson v. Gutschenritter" to argue lease obligations ceased after eviction; the court found no such Kansas caselaw and declined to rely on it.

Court: CA KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA Kansas

02 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc.

False Quotes: Case Law | Court determined Lexos attributed language to Baldwin Graphic Systems that does not appear in that opinion (quotation fabricated). || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found an explanatory parenthetical quoted from AstraZeneca did not exist in that opinion (quotation fabricated). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found citation to AVM Techs. LLC v. Intel Corp. was incorrect (wrong reporter/reference) and that the cited authority does not support the proposition asserted. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found Lexos misattributed a quotation to Rodriguez-Felix that actually appears in Daubert and noted Rodriguez-Felix does not contain the quoted language. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found Lexos quoted Microsoft (i4i v. Microsoft) in support of a point about incomplete claim constructions, but the quoted language does not exist in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found Lexos attributed specific language and holdings to Cordis that do not appear in Cordis and noted the patents discussed did not contain the quoted language (misquotation/nonexistent quotation). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found several page-specific citations (e.g., Flexuspine, cited at 879 F.3d 1369, 1375) did not support the proposition asserted and the cited page lacked the discussed admissibility analysis (misrepresented authority). || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found a cited decision 'Hockett v. City of Topeka, No. 19-4037-DDC, 2020 WL 6796766, at *3' does not exist; quotation and parenthetical attributed to it are fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted parenthetical attributed to Liquid Dynamics is not in the opinion (quotation fabricated).

Court: D. KansasParty: LawyerTool: ChatGPT

Fine: 12000 USD

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

16 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Robby Mendez v. City of Topeka, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated reference to Smith v. West Lake Enterprises, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (D. Kan. 2005)

Court: D. KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

16 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'John Arthur Boyd v. Charles Ball, No. 108,817 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2014),' which the opinion states does not exist and treats as a fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'State v. White, No. 108,817 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)' using the same docket number as the fabricated Ball citation; court flagged the mismatch and nonexistence/relevance. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant listed 'Smith v. Kansas Department of Revenue, No. 119,429 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018),' which the opinion indicates appears not to exist with that docket and is a fabricated or incorrect citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Wiles v. American Family Insurance Co., 302 Kan. ___, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' and described it as reversing a default; court explained the citation is incorrect/mischaracterized and actually corresponds to a different opinion (Mashaney). || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Appellant relied on a Court of Appeals version of Garcia v. Ball (50 Kan. App. 2d 197, 323 P.3d 872 (2014)); court noted that citation was overruled by the Kansas Supreme Court and thus is outdated/overturned authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' but mischaracterized its holding as reversing a default judgment; court explained Mashaney involved malpractice/judgment on the pleadings, not a default reversal.

Court: CA KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA Kansas

06 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Sammie Dwayne McPhaul v. College Hills OPCO

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage attributed to Cory v. Troth that does not appear in that opinion; court identified the quotation as inaccurate. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to Mason v. Gerin Corp. that is not found in the opinion; court flagged it as inaccurate. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Fanning v. Sitton Motor Lines as containing language about showing 'some cognitive awareness' that the opinion does not contain; court noted the misquotation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a phrase about 'even the movement of the toes or legs of the decedent' to Cochrane v. Schneider Nat’l that does not exist in that opinion; court flagged it. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Lemmons v. Board of County Comm’rs for a relation-back principle quotation that is absent from that decision; court identified the inaccuracy. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Pape v. Kansas Power & Light Co. with an incorrect citation number; court noted the citation was not correct.

Court: D. KansasParty: Lawyer

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

11 DEC 2025 · Court Case

McLain v. Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, Kansas, et al.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case that the court found had 'no bearing on the proposition' for which it was cited, treated as a misapplied/misrepresented authority likely produced by AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' application for entry of default contained at least one nonexistent (phantom) case citation; the court identified it as fabricated and warned plaintiffs to validate AI-generated content.

Court: D. KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

04 NOV 2025 · Court Case

Borsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's response cited 'Alford v. City of Canon City, 2019 WL 13202842, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2019),' which neither the Court nor defense counsel could locate; Court treated it as a non-existent citation and admonished plaintiff to verify AI-generated citations.

Court: D. KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

07 OCT 2025 · Court Case

Douglas Stuart Queen v. Kansas City et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Cases cited without concern to their accuracy

Court: D. KansasParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

14 NOV 2024 · Court Case

Berry v. Stewart

Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant's briefing quoted a forum-selection clause that does not appear in the parties' contract or any filed papers; the actual clause is at Doc. 11-1 ¶ 12. || Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a non-existent case, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co.; Westlaw citation returns no case, no CM/ECF case exists, docket format is invalid for D. Kan., and no judge with initials JPM sits in the district.

Court: D. KansasParty: Lawyer

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

31 JUL 2023 · Policy / Guidance

Kansas Policy and Procedures Memorandum 8200.00

Outlines acceptable use of generative AI for Kansas's Executive Branch agencies. Requires human review of AI outputs for accuracy and prohibits reliance on AI for official statements. Bans input of Restricted Use Information and copyrighted material into AI.

Official materialFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+2Official source · governor.ks.gov ↗