Skip to main content
Citation Safe
← All teardowns

Compiled by Citation Safe (Digital Empire Holdings LLC) from the court’s published sanction order (decided October 7, 2026). Quotes and case details come from the order itself — check the primary source before relying on them.

Sanction teardown · CA Florida (4d), USA · 2026-10-07

Kid International, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida

What happened

In CA Florida (4d), USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The brief cited Ogilvie v. Sebring Airport Authority seven times, but the cited case does not exist; it also included a fictional quotation from it. The court disregarded the citation and quotation.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The brief relied on City National Bank of Florida v. Louisiana Apple, LLC, while falsely asserting that the case established admissions by the defendant bank and using fictional quotations. The court rejected those characterizations.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The brief cited Mansolillo v. Parties by Lynn, Inc. with an incorrect citation and attributed a quotation and legal proposition that the actual case did not contain or support. The court noted that the case came from a different court and year and had a different citation.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    The brief attributed a quotation to Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Holt, but the quotation does not appear in the actual opinion.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The brief relied heavily on Silvestrone v. Edell and inaccurately excerpted the opinion to support several propositions. The court treated the authorities as misrepresented and disregarded them.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The plaintiffs' original pro se complaint cited fifteen nonexistent cases, misstated the holdings of two accurately cited cases, and inaccurately cited fourteen cases with misstated holdings. The court described these errors as presumably resulting from artificial-intelligence use, although the sanctions ruling focused on the later initial brief.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Adverse Costs Order

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3248/Kid_Intl_v._City_Natl_Bank_of_Fla_USA_07-10-2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).