30 JAN 2026 · Court Case

SEC v. Joseph Nantomah et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Goldberg v. 401 North Washakie Venture LLC, 155 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 2014)'; court found the citation incorrect/nonexistent and noted 155 F.3d 465 corresponds to Condon v. Reno; court located a different Seventh Circuit Goldberg decision at 755 F.3d 456. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an unintelligible 'Johnson v. 2003 App. 242, 117, 652 N.W.2d 48 at 647' and a purported direct quote; court found the citation and quote unintelligible and noted the reporter '652 N.W.2d 48' corresponds to a Minnesota case (In re Silicone Implant Ins. Coverage Litig.). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Presented 'Sengry v. R.H. Love Galleries, Inc.' rather than the actual Stenger v. R.H. Love Galleries, Inc.; court identified this as a typographical/garbled citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Hirk v. R-Arch-Roch. Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1977)' in place of Hirk v. Agri-Research Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1972); court noted the mismatch and garbling. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Miriam M.S. Commodities Inc., 15 E.2d 724 (7th Cir. 1972)' instead of Milnarik v. M–S Commodities, Inc., 457 F.2d 274 (7th Cir. 1972); court noted the garbled name and citation.

Court: E.D. WisconsinParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

23 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Ann K. Cady, Beth L. Corning, and Caron G. Roesler v. Matthew C. O'Malley

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's briefs included citations to legal authorities that do not exist; respondents pointed these out and the court noted the fabricated citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited existing cases and authorities but used them to support propositions to which they were wholly unrelated (mis-citation/misrepresentation).

Court: CA WisconsinParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA Wisconsin

18 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Gerou v. George, Whitten, and United States

False Quotes: Case Law | Petitioners quoted Oates v. National Bank as stating banks 'may only deal in negotiable instruments and lawful money'; court found no such quote in Oates (100 U.S. 239 (1879)). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioners attributed to National Bank v. Matthews a statement that banks 'cannot lend their credit to another'; court found the cited case (98 U.S. 621 (1878)) does not contain that statement. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners cited 'Commercial Bank of Cleveland v. Ely (1853)'; court could not locate that case and found the similar Commercial Bank of Cleveland v. Iola, 154 U.S. 617 (1875) does not contain the quoted language. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners repeatedly quoted 'Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco v. United States (1919)'; court was unable to locate any case with that name or date. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioners cited 'Glover v. Standard Oil Co., 65 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 1946)' to support that an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth; court traced citation to a different reported opinion which does not support that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioners cited Bank of Augusta v. Earle and Merchants' Bank v. State Bank as holding a bank that lends credit acts beyond its charter; court found those cases do not hold that proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners cited 'Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith (1819)'; court could not locate any such case and noted the closest is an 1821 case that does not support petitioners' claims.

Court: E.D. WisconsinParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

04 NOV 2025 · Court Case

Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al.

False Quotes: Case Law | The Removing Defendants contended that Plaintiff 'hallucinates nonexistent quotes from cases' in support of her remand argument; the Court agreed the cited authority was inapplicable but did not identify or quote a specific fabricated citation.

Court: E.D. WisconsinParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

04 NOV 2025 · Court Case

Todd E. Glass v. Foley & Lardner LLP

Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not verify the citation; the case 'S.G. v. SafeSport, 74 F.4th 864, 870 (7th Cir. 2023)' does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate this district decision; 'Cafasso v. Central Refrigerated Servs., Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1084 (W.D. Wis. 2007)' does not appear to exist in this district or under that reporter information. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation appears misrepresented: the cited case number 'Cressey v. Hamilton, No. 21-CV-2031 (D. Kan. 2021)' corresponds to a different matter in the District of Kansas.

Court: W.D. WisconsinParty: Pro Se Litigant

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

07 AUG 2025 · Court Case

Graham-Jackson v. Martin and Rock Prairie Farms, LLC

Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited legal authorities that do not exist; respondents flagged and court found violations of RULE 809.19(1)(e) and (4)(b). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Opening brief cited existing authorities wholly unrelated to the propositions asserted; respondents identified and court found violations of briefing rules. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief repeated false legal citations, including non-existent authorities, after being put on notice; court imposed sanctions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief cited authorities unrelated to the propositions asserted, perpetuating the briefing-rule violations noted by the court. || Fabricated: Case Law | Relied on non-existent authorities to oppose application of § 805.04 and argue he could unilaterally dismiss Rock Prairie Farms via amended complaint; court rejected as unsupported (fn. 6). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Invoked WIS. STAT. § 971.13 and State v. Garfoot to require a competency determination in this civil action; court held those criminal-competency authorities inapplicable.

Court: CA WisconsinParty: Pro Se Litigant

Fine: 500 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA Wisconsin

22 JAN 2025 · Court Case

Arajuo v. Wedelstadt et al

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants' counsel's summary judgment brief included citations to non-existent cases; court flagged them, referenced Rule 11 and Park v. Kim, noted likely AI-generated sources, and warned of sanctions; counsel filed an amended brief omitting them.

Court: E.D. WisconsinParty: Lawyer

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

15 APR 2024 · Other

Wisconsin AB 1068 (Relating to: use of artificial intelligence by state agencies and staff reduction goals. (FE))

Creates a requirement for Wisconsin state agencies to submit biennial reports starting in 2026 about their use of artificial intelligence tools to increase efficiency. Defines "artificial intelligence tool" as applications using AI, including machine learning and generative AI, to perform tasks and assist agency functions. Instructs agencies to report on AI's impact on staff efficiency, AI tools in use, progress toward position reductions, and adherence to audit recommendations. Requires a...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · docs.legis.wisconsin.gov ↗

21 MAR 2024 · Law / Act

Wisconsin Act 2023-123 (Artificial Intelligence Content Disclosure)

Amends Wisconsin statutes to require political ads containing AI-generated media to disclose this fact audibly and visibly. Grants rule-making authority for implementation and imposes fines for non-compliance. Exempts broadcasters from liability unless responsible for the communication.

Primary legal sourceFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+2Official source · docs.legis.wisconsin.gov ↗

23 AUG 2023 · Executive Order

Wisconsin Executive Order #211

Establishes the Governor’s Task Force on Workforce and Artificial Intelligence, chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Workforce Development. Directs the Task Force to analyze AI's labor market impact, advance equity, and recommend workforce and education policy solutions.

Secondary evidenceFinancial Services ·Education ·Health & Life Sciences ·+2Issuing institution: Issuing authority not identified