Texas

Stanford v. Leinart

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a nonexistent opinion "Anderson v. Hood" in his brief; the court found the citation fabricated and likely AI-generated and admonished that citation of nonexistent cases is unacceptable.

Hartmann v. Davidson

Fabricated: Case Law

Fabian Antonio Thomas v. Officer Skylar Sillivent, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited United States v. Lopez, 817 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2016); the Court found this to be a phantom case that does not exist.

David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC

Fabricated: Case Law || False Quotes: Case Law | The plaintiffs' briefing allegedly 'manufacture[d] or cite[d] hallucinated quotations' attributed to the Fifth Circuit's decision in Ash v. Flowers Foods, Inc.; the court notes the quoted language does not appear in Ash.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Frances W. Dean

Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined this cited case does not exist; relied on it in her filings. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found the case exists but was attributed to the wrong court than claimed in Dean's filing. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined this cited case does not exist; relied on it in her motion. || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Court noted Dean failed to disclose that this authority was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court.

Kenneth Hawkins v. I.C. System, Inc.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff included authorities in filings that the Court could not locate and determined did not appear to exist; Court warned this constituted 'made up' citations and reminded plaintiff of Rule 11.

Shawn Olali v. Ampex Brands, LLC

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's pleadings included citations to nonexistent cases; the court noted these fabricated citations and warned of Rule 11 sanctions.

Shaerica L. Walder v. Experian Information Solutions

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff repeatedly cited nonexistent/fictitious cases in her motion for summary judgment; the magistrate judge flagged the fabricated citations and the district court warned that further citation of nonexistent cases could result in sanctions.

Ericka Holmes v. The University of Texas at Austin

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a nonexistent Fifth Circuit case 'Harris v. City of Houston (5th Cir. 2022)' to support an 'age-specific references' standard; court found the case does not exist and labeled it a hallucinated case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel attributed to Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc. a holding that 'discrimination claims may proceed without traditional comparator evidence,' which the court found to be a mischaracterization of Lenzi. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel relied on Hamilton v. Dallas County as if it pertained to the comparator pleading requirement; the court found that Hamilton is unrelated to that element and was mischaracterized. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Multiple citations were improperly formatted or incorrect (examples flagged by the court), indicating inaccurate or AI-generated citation errors.

Sidni Campbell v. John Campbell, Jr.

Fabricated: Case Law | Daren cited cases that do not appear to exist; court observed fabricated case citations in his motions. || False Quotes: Case Law | Daren cited purported quotations that do not exist in the relevant opinions; court noted misquoted or phantom quotations.

Yue v. Reaction Labs, LLC

Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified Lup's citation to Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM Co., No. 9:07-cv-196, 2009 WL 763926, at *10 as impossible because the cited order exists but is only eight pages long, making a page *10 citation incorrect. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Lup's citation to Fiber Sys. Int'l v. Applied Optical Sys., 2009 WL 8590962, at *8-9 is incorrect because the order is only six pages and was published on June 24, 2009 (not March 2009) — indicating misdated/mispaginated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Editor’s note and court flagged that the opinion contains citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist, preserving invalid citations as part of the record.

Kisha Peters v. Banner Health

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff filed documents containing fabricated case citations and quotations that the Defendant and Court flagged as fake; Court ordered verification of AI-generated citations and warned against filing unverified AI content. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff included false quotations attributed to cases in filings (appearing AI-generated); Court found quotations inaccurate or fake and again required certification that citations were checked in the courthouse law library.

Suday v. Suday

Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Garrison v. Garrison, 966 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Ex parte Hudson, 11 U.S. 225, 234 (1812)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Sabir v. Daud, No. 01-22-00956-CV, 2024 WL 3478110, at 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 18, 2024, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Douglas v. Douglas, 454 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1970, no writ)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Woodard v. Andrus, 419 S.W.3d 226, 234 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. denied)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.

Garibay-Robledo v. Noem

Fabricated: Case Law | The petition relied on a non-existent Fifth Circuit case; counsel later admitted the citation came from a Facebook comment and the Court flagged the error. || False Quotes: Case Law | The reply brief contained a fabricated quotation that the Court identified and referenced when granting leave to file a corrected petition.

Johnson v. Digital Federal Credit Union

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case for the proposition that an "Overdraft Protection Plan constitutes 'credit'"; the court noted the case does not exist and declined to rely on it.

Allen v. Amazon

Fabricated: Case Law | Amazon contended Allen cited non-existent cases and procedures generated by AI; the court noted the allegation but the opinion does not list specific fabricated case citations. || False Quotes: Case Law | Amazon alleged Allen provided hallucinated quotations (false quotes) from cases produced by AI; court referenced the allegation but did not reproduce the quoted text or identify the real source.

In re Ricardo Andres Romeu

Fabricated: Case Law | Relator's brief included a citation to a non-existent case; the court identified it as false and warned of possible future sanctions.

Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Valdez v. Joy Techs., 201 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2000)'; the court determined this case does not exist and the citation was fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Cunningham v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 2005 WL 2033364, at 3 (S.D. Tex. 2005)'; the court determined this citation does not exist and was fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Taylor v. Brighton Corp., 616 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1980) and attributed the quotation 'OSHA does not create a private cause of action' to it; the court found the case exists but does not contain that quoted language (false quote).

Moorehead v. Goodwill Industries of Northeast Texas

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no record of Turner v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 2023 WL 4567762 (E.D. Tex. 2023); the citation appears nonexistent and was identified as an AI-generated hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no In re Caterpillar Inc. decision that matches the cited authority or supports the plaintiff's proposition; the particular citation (67 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 1995)) does not correspond to a controlling or supportive Fifth Circuit decision as used by plaintiff. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Waguespack v. Medtronic, Inc., 2020 WL 8673953, but the court located Waguespack at 185 F. Supp. 3d 916 (M.D. La. 2016) and the Westlaw link provided actually pointed to Renner v. Morris, 2020 WL 8673953; the authority and quoted language were misattributed and do not support the claimed proposition in the Fifth Circuit.

Virginia Montoya Cabanas v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

False Quotes: Doctrinal Work | Brief contained inaccurate quotations of cited conference report || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's brief claimed the Government cited three cases that were not actually cited in the Government's filings. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief contained mischaracterizations of cited precedent (substantive inaccuracies in characterizations).

Shelton v. Parkland Health

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contained multiple nonexistent legal citations generated by GAI; Court found the filings included 'nonexistent legal citations' and relied on opposing counsel's objections and investigation.

Joy Wilson v. KIPP Texas, Inc.

False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | AI-generated non-existent quoted statement #1 in the Declaration purported to be verbatim from Plaintiff's job description; court found no such language in the job description.

Jayroe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Villatoro v. GWL Cmt. Mgmt., LLC, 2013 WL 12101130 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2013)', which the court found does not exist; Westlaw link led to an unrelated Hopwood opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ortiz v. General Motors Corp., 2008 WL 2620736 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2008)', which the court identified as a problematic, non-existent authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Cowart v. AVIK Services, No. 3:19-CV-00101, 2019 WL 1745988 (S.D. Tex. 2019)', another citation the court deemed non-existent or AI-generated.

Pete v. Facebook Meta Platforms

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase "may not consider extraneous factors such as the plaintiff's poverty" to Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co.; the court found that quoted language is not in Franco and could not identify its source. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff misquoted Atlantic Marine; the court noted the misquote but found Atlantic Marine nonetheless supports giving forum-selection clauses controlling weight.

David R. Pete v. United States Department of Justice, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case in his objections that the court could not locate; plaintiff later claimed he had submitted authentic copies but attached none; the court concluded the citation was AI-generated and fake. || Fabricated: Case Law | A second case citation in the plaintiff's objections likewise could not be verified; the court found it to be an AI-hallucinated fake opinion and declined to rely on objections based on it.

Gavin B. Davis v. Chief Officer Gina Faubion, et al.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | AI research suggested 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could be used against federal pretrial officers; the court noted § 1983 does not apply to federal actors and the suggestion was inaccurate. || Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | AI suggested a viable Bivens claim for alleged unlawful conditions of release; the court found plaintiff made no showing that Bivens applies to these alleged violations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | AI relied on dissenting opinions as support (citing a dissent that itself cites another dissent); the court noted dissents are non-binding and insufficient to justify amendment.

Ezenwa Ebem v. Bondi et al.

Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff repeatedly asserted a 'Clerk's Entry of Default' though the Clerk never entered default; the filings were refiling/relabeling of a motion (Dkt. Nos. 28-4; 29-1). Court treated this as a fabricated filing claim in the submissions. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff claimed an Immigration Judge made a 'final and binding' ruling that USCIS violated the APA; court found transcript only contained the IJ saying he 'can't do much other than wait' and noting lack of review authority, not a binding APA finding.

Jason Stanford v. Behrooz P. Vida, et al.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quotation to Villegas v. Schmidt that the magistrate found does not appear in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quotation to Leonard v. Vrooman that the magistrate found does not appear in that opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cited a case the undersigned could not verify; court found no proof the decision exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cited a case the undersigned could not verify; court found no proof the decision exists.

Pete v. Houston Methodist Hospital

Fabricated: Other | Plaintiff submitted an unsigned affidavit attributed to 'Alexandra J. Smith' (with a Texas bar number) but admitted she never met the person and the State Bar had no record. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Taylor v. United States, No. 6:21-cv-448, 2022 WL 257007' which the court could not locate and deemed possibly fake. || Misrepresented: Other | Plaintiff asserted service was effected June 10, 2025 and that the clerk entered default June 21, 2025, though the court docket showed no summons or clerk's entry of default. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Lee v. United States, No. 1:23-cv-84, 2023 WL 2505510' which the court could not locate and deemed possibly fake.

USA v. Sethi

False Quotes: Case Law | Defendant attributed to Faretta a quotation that does not appear in the opinion; court found the quoted language was fabricated/misquoted and corrected the record. || False Quotes: Case Law | Defendant purported a quotation from Chambers that the court says does not exist and is inapposite to the record; court rejected the misquote. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found that 18 of the defendant's purported quotations from various cases were complete fabrications and that some cited cases do not exist; none supported his claims. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant asserted the investigator's report contained a "verification from the Senior General Counsel of Hess Corporation," but the court found no such verification among the report's exhibits.

Thackston v. Driscoll

Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Fabela v. Socorro ISD for anti-retaliation/hostile-work-environment propositions the case does not discuss, per the court. || Fabricated: Case Law | Asserted a Ninth Circuit opinion and quotation (United States v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2010)) that the court found does not exist in that reporter citation or elsewhere. || Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Attributed a remedial-quotation to the EEOC Compliance Manual (Section 3) that the court could not locate; court noted Section 3 concerns employee benefits, not 'remedies' as represented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cited Armstrong v. Turner Industries and supplied a restorative-remedy quotation and Rehabilitation Act context that the court found absent from the cited opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Represented a Seventh Circuit AutoZone case as approving a consent decree with a third‑party monitor; court found the cited case number refers to an unrelated opinion and existing AutoZone decisions do not discuss appointment of such a monitor as claimed. || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Relied on Chevron as controlling deference doctrine despite Chevron having been overruled by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright; court noted Chevron is overruled. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation about the Rehabilitation Act and restorative assignments to Palmer v. Shultz; court found Palmer is a Title VII D.C. Cir. case and the quoted language does not appear in Palmer or any case the court could locate. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cited an opinion and quotation attributed to EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc.; court found the quoted language does not exist in that case or any federal case searched. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a specific quote to Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars though the quotation does not appear in that decision, per the court's review. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited LHC Group for a retaliation-holding the court concluded

Karina Elizondo vs. City of Laredo

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff’s response included fictitious case citations; the Court found some citations were fabricated rather than real cases. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Four cited cases had wildly inaccurate citation details (case numbers, dates, reporters, Westlaw cites, page numbers, and federal vs. state courts). || Misrepresented: Case Law | The response misrepresented the legal holdings of the cases it cited.

Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149)

Establishes the Artificial Intelligence Council to regulate AI, preventing harm, discrimination, and privacy infringement, and requires disclosures of AI use to consumers. Establishes the AI Council and Sandbox Program for testing AI systems and authorizes the attorney general to enforce compliance and impose penalties.

Wilt v. Department of the Navy

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sanchez v. United States to claim FTCA permits redress for systemic negligence; the court found no such N.D. Tex. 1992 case at 803 F. Supp. 1066 and said it appears AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Wilkerson v. University of N. Tex. to allow substitution of the proper Title VII defendant; the court found no such 1989 Fifth Circuit case at 878 F.2d 276 and said it appears AI-generated.

Brown v. Patel et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants reported Brown’s brief cited five nonexistent cases; the Court cautioned him about Rule 11. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brown claimed Hadnot v. Bay 'cited approvingly' Shankle and recognized cost-splitting/confidentiality/discovery limits as unconscionable; the Court noted Hadnot neither references Shankle nor addresses unconscionability. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brown asserted Circuit City acknowledged that 'inequality of bargaining power' is a significant enforcement consideration; the Court explained the cited passage instead discussed the benefits of enforcing employment arbitration agreements.

Crystal Truong, et al. v. Flint Hills Resources, LLC, et al.