19 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Oscar Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants identified eight cited cases in Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion as non-existent (AI-generated fictitious cases); Court found submission of fictitious cases violated Rule 11. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Several other cited authorities did not stand for the legal propositions cited or did not contain the quoted language, i.e., misrepresented/inaccurate case authority generated by AI.

Court: E.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Fine: 500 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: E.D. Oklahoma

11 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Dillon v. Myles Stephenson, et al.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found reporter citation incorrect; a case with the same name exists but the cited reporter and proposition are incorrect/misrepresented. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found citation does not exist and is unrelated to the GTCA. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found citation does not exist and is unrelated to the GTCA.

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

06 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Garrison v. Gambro as stating summary judgment is a "drastic remedy" to be granted "with caution;" the court found Garrison does not contain that language or proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Tuckel v. Glover as recognizing unavailability where an inmate is "so sick" or incapacitated; the court found Tuckel does not include the quoted language or reflect that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's citation to Lemons v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. in his Surreply was incorrect per the court (citation error/misrepresentation). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Braham v. Cty. of Washington, No. 2:19-CV01128, 2020 WL 1166395, at *6, but the court could not locate any such case or citation, suggesting a fabricated citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Jones v. Bock for the proposition that the defendant bears the burden of proving availability of administrative remedies; the court noted Jones does not support that proposition.

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

24 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3)

Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple quotations in petitioner's motion to disqualify did not appear in the cited cases; Judge Huntsman identified four fake quotations and previously struck the filing. || False Quotes: Case Law | Objection contains an inaccurate/partial quotation attributed to the Rohan case; the quoted material is incomplete and not an accurate quotation from the case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Badillo v. Thorpe, 158 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Conn. 2001),' but that reporter citation corresponds to Tropical Air Flying Services, Inc. v. Carmen Feliciando de Melecio; the actual Badillo v. Thorpe decision is at 158 F. App'x 208 (11th Cir. 2005).

Court: N.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Fine: 405 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. Oklahoma

03 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Kizzie Sims & Estate of Gregory Neil Davis v. Board of County Commissioners

Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found one "misstatement"

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

12 JAN 2026 · Court Case

O. Gene Bicknell v. Richard M. Silanskas Jr., et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent case to support narrowing subpoenas; Court could locate no such case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Provided a citation purportedly from D. Neb. that does not exist (mis-cited/fictional). || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an apparently fictitious Central District of California case rejecting requests for entire email accounts; Court could not locate it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Authority exists but was cited as supporting rejection of expansive subpoenas involving email; Court found the case actually granted a motion to compel and does not support the claimed proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a Northern District of Oklahoma decision that the Court could not locate; the referenced material instead pointed to unrelated Washington state health regulations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited an existing S.D.N.Y. case for the proposition that a court may hear a motion to quash outside the district of compliance; Court found the case addresses amendment of a complaint, not venue for motions to quash. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted a passage attributed to the case that does not appear in the opinion; quotation was used to argue citation errors are not sanctionable but the case does not contain that language. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited an S.D.N.Y. decision that exists and involves subpoenas but does not support the specific proposition that this court may resolve a subpoena objection outside the district of compliance. || Fabricated: Case Law | Provided a citation that referred to an FDA safety report rather than a District of South Carolina case; Court could locate no such D.S.C. decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a specific quotation about sanctions to the Supreme Court case, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in that opinion.

Court: N.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. Oklahoma

09 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Zaykariya v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified McEwen v. McCullough, 347 F. Supp. 2d 349 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified Edwards v. First Nat’l Bank of Anchorage, 67 F.3d 1299 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified Anderson v. Nationwide Mortg. Grp., Inc., 281 B.R. 177 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified Williams v. Lowndes Cnty., 475 F.3d 820 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified Smith v. Aegis Mortg. Corp., 560 F.3d 837 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified In re Barlow, 59 B.R. 707 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 113 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified United States v. Signatone Corp., 60 F.3d 365 as a fake case cited by Plaintiffs. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Plaintiffs cited Speleos v. BAC Home Loans, 755 F.Supp.2d 304 and incorrectly represented it as supporting a RESPA violation, whereas the case did not discuss RESPA.

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

01 JAN 2026 · Law / Act

2026 Chatbot Legislation — Oklahoma HB 3544 [URL: http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB3544&Session=2600]

2026 chatbot legislation requiring involves therapy/mental health — Passed Chamber

Primary legal sourceGenerative AI ·Data Privacy & ProtectionOfficial source · oklegislature.gov ↗

01 JAN 2026 · Law / Act

Oklahoma HB 1916

Oklahoma 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

04 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Dalton Gage Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's response (Doc. 97) included multiple non-existent case citations generated by Chat GPT; court found the citations fictitious and counsel admitted AI use.

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: LawyerTool: ChatGPT

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

22 OCT 2025 · Court Case

Mattox v. Product Innovation Research

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under this citation; similar Tenth Circuit decision exists but does not contain the quoted law. || Fabricated: Case Law | Citation combined/ conflated unrelated authorities; court found no case at that citation and similar decisions do not support the quoted law. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under the cited name and citation; citation appears fabricated/mismatched. || Fabricated: Case Law | No Tenth Circuit decision exists at that citation; the docketed citation corresponds to an unrelated out-of-circuit case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under that citation; similar named district decision exists but does not support plaintiffs' asserted rule. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court located no case under this citation; authority appears fabricated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited the wrong year/citation for the decision; court identified correct authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court determined the specific language plaintiffs attributed to the case does not appear in the opinion cited. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the law plaintiffs claimed derived from this Supreme Court opinion was not present in the opinion as quoted. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded the decision does not hold the proposition plaintiffs attributed to it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no decision at this federal reporter/citation; cited authority is incorrect or nonexistent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited an incorrect citation; the court identified the correct citation and that the cited version was erroneous.

Court: E.D. OklahomaParty: LawyerTool: ChatGPT

⚠ Professional sanction imposedFine: 28495 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: E.D. Oklahoma

29 SEP 2025 · Court Case

Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation, et al. (2)

False Quotes: Case Law | Court identified numerous non-existent quoted passages in Plaintiff's original motion and struck it; the quoted language was false and unsupported by the cited cases. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Smith v. Sprint decision with a Westlaw pin and date that do not correspond to the asserted district or holding. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited an Oklahoma Bar Ass'n Benefield decision with a Pacific Reporter citation that actually points to an unrelated Oregon case; the asserted language/authority was not supported. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Green v. Tulane Educ. Fund opinion purportedly from the W.D. Okla. in 2020 that does not exist at that citation and does not support the alleged proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Geb with a Pacific Reporter citation that instead points to an Alaska case; the citation did not support the claimed proposition about dual representation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Minter with a Pacific Reporter citation that corresponds to unrelated authority; the cited Minter authorities did not support the asserted point on arbitration/attorney-witness issues.

Court: N.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. Oklahoma

09 SEP 2025 · Court Case

Shantell Robinson v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent opinion, 'Henlsey v. Alcon Labs, 277 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2002)'; Court noted it was non-existent and that fake opinions are not existing law. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found many filings contained non-existent and mischaracterized legal authority; Rule 11 violations for relying on fake or misrepresented authorities.

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

08 AUG 2025 · Court Case

Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al (1)

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to Kevlik v. Goldstein; the Court found the quoted language does not appear in the case. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to F.D.I.C. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co.; the Court found the quoted language does not appear in the case. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to Unified Sewerage Agency v. Jelco Inc.; the Court found the quoted language does not appear in the case. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a second quotation to Kevlik v. Goldstein; the Court found the quoted language does not appear in the case.

Court: N.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. Oklahoma

03 JUL 2025 · Court Case

Sharita Hill v. State of Oklahoma

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Response cited nonexistent cases; the Court reviewed and agreed they do not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's Response included direct quotes attributed to legal authorities that could not be located; the Court confirmed they could not be found. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's Response contained inaccurate case citations; the Court agreed they were inaccurate.

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

02 APR 2025 · Law / Act

Oklahoma House Bill 1916

Enacts the "Responsible Deployment of AI Systems Act," requiring the classification of AI systems in Oklahoma by risk level, mandating oversight and audits for high-risk AI systems. Establishes the Artificial Intelligence Council to enforce compliance, oversee innovation programs, and guide ethical AI deployment.

Primary legal sourceFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+30Official source · oklegislature.gov ↗

31 MAR 2025 · Court Case

McKeown v. Paycom Payroll LLC

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff previously filed a brief citing non-existent legal authority; the Court issued a warning against falsified citations (Dkt. 18). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's sur-reply cited a non-existent case; the Court found the citation fictitious and noted the closest real case does not support the asserted proposition.

Court: W.D. OklahomaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: W.D. Oklahoma

01 APR 2024 · Court Case

The City of Tulsa Municipal Court Rules 2024

Require parties using generative AI for court documents to disclose its use and name the specific tool. Include examples like ChatGPT, Bing AI, or Google Bard. Ensure compliance with existing filing standards under 12 O.S. §2011.

Secondary evidenceIssuing institution: Issuing authority not identified

11 JAN 2024 · Other

Oklahoma H 3642

Defines "child pornography" to include computergenerated images and establishes severe penalties for production and possession. Requires registration as a sex offender for possession of 100+ depictions. Effective November 1, 2024, the act targets explicit computer-generated images involving minors.

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