Compiled by Citation Safe (Digital Empire Holdings LLC) from the court’s published sanction order (decided September 30, 2026). Quotes and case details come from the order itself — check the primary source before relying on them.

Sanction teardown · D. Colorado, USA · 2026-09-30

Miller v. Colorado Department of Revenue

What happened

In D. Colorado, 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)

Plaintiff cited “Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 2011 WL 1103376 (S.D. Cal. 2011).” The court could not locate that case or citation; the Westlaw citation led to Cohen v. Federal Express Corp., and the similar real Hurley case was from the W.D. Mich. The court also found that the available Hurley orders did not support Plaintiff’s quoted proposition concerning SCRA coverage of interest and similar charges.
False Quotes (Case Law)

Plaintiff represented that Hurley held that the SCRA covers interest and similar charges, including service fees and late fees. The court reviewed the actual Hurley orders and found that none supported that proposition.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiff cited Brewster as a D.C. Circuit case and claimed it held that 50 U.S.C. § 3937 requires creditors to forgive all interest and charges above six percent. The court determined that Brewster was a Ninth Circuit case concerning the meaning of “foreclosure” and did not address § 3937 or forgiveness of excessive interest.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiff stated that Robin Farms granted an SCRA continuance because the servicemember was away on active duty. The court found the opposite: the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the motion for continuance.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiff represented that Batie v. Subway settled for approximately $10 million. The court found no public docket support for that assertion and noted that the case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction against the corporate defendant, followed by dismissal of claims against the individual defendant.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiff represented that Cathey v. First Republic Bank settled for approximately $4 million. The court found that none of the public docket entries reflected the amount of any settlement.

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

Order to Show Cause

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/3170/Miller_v._Colorado_Department_of_Revenue_USA_30-09-2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).