Kurelko v. Ballard
Decided 2026-08-25 · Outcome: Admonishment & Warning · AI tool: Implied.
22 sanctioned cases on record in D. New Jersey where an attorney filed briefs, motions, or other pleadings containing AI-fabricated citations. Every entry below traces to a real, publicly reported court ruling. Data pulled daily from the underlying dockets and reporter databases — last update within 24 hours.
How courts in D. New Jersey have responded when a filing contained fabricated citations.
Filings in this jurisdiction most often cite the tool as “Implied” (the ruling describes an AI-generated brief but does not name a product).
Across 22 documented sanctions in D. New Jersey, the most common judicial response is Warning (8 of 22). Of the 22 cases, 2 carried an explicit monetary penalty in the ruling text.
The rulings in this jurisdiction are consistent with the pattern Citation Safe tracks nationally: when a court identifies a fabricated citation, the sanction almost always follows within days, not weeks. The attorney of record — not the AI — is on the hook. Rule 11 (federal), state analogs, and inherent authority all support monetary sanctions, disgorgement, adverse-costs orders, and bar referrals independent of the tool that produced the citation.
Practical implication: any brief that reaches a docket in D. New Jersey needs a citation-existence check before filing. Existence is Layer 1 — the case has to be real. Layer 2 is quote accuracy (any quoted language must actually appear in the opinion). Layer 3 is propositional support (the opinion must actually stand for what you cite it for). Every documented sanction below failed at Layer 1 or Layer 2 — the kind of failure that is trivially catchable before filing and catastrophically visible after.
Sample penalty language from this jurisdiction: “6000 USD”; “3000 USD”.
Decided 2026-08-25 · Outcome: Admonishment & Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-06-26 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-06-16 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-05-12 · Outcome: Order to Show Cause · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-03-26 · Outcome: Order to provide PDF copies of cited case; Order to Show Cause · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-03-16 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-03-05 · Outcome: Motion to dismiss granted; warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-02-03 · Outcome: Struck filings; warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-01-07 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-12-31 · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-12-31 · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-12-19 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-12-15 · Outcome: Monetary fine; Bar Referral; Order to serve order to Client · Penalty: 6000 USD · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-11-03 · Outcome: Court required counsel to certify completion of an AI seminar · AI tool: ChatGPT.
Decided 2025-10-22 · Outcome: Sanctions deferred · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-09-30 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-09-25 · Outcome: Show Cause Order · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-09-18 · Outcome: Monetary sanction; Plaintiff's Reply withdrawn and stricken; order to self-report to bar(s) and serve client with order · Penalty: 3000 USD · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-09-16 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-09-03 · Outcome: Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-08-15 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Westlaw (and others unidentified).
Decided 2025-07-23 · Outcome: Opinion withdrawn by judge · AI tool: ChatGPT.
Other courts on the Citation Safe sanctions database with a similar volume of AI-hallucination rulings on record.
3 free checks. No signup. Every citation checked against the primary source — not another AI. $19 unlocks the full annotated report.
Informational only. Not legal advice. Data derived from public court records; corrections at /contact.