John Hurt v. Ampcus, Inc.
Decided 2026-07-08 · Outcome: Admonishment · AI tool: Implied.
14 sanctioned cases on record in E.D. Texas 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 E.D. Texas 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 14 documented sanctions in E.D. Texas, the most common judicial response is Warning (4 of 14). Of the 14 cases, 3 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 E.D. Texas 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”; “2000 USD”; “200 USD”.
Decided 2026-07-08 · Outcome: Admonishment · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-06-15 · Outcome: Monetary Sanctions · Penalty: 200 USD · AI tool: Cetient.
Decided 2026-06-11 · Outcome: Public Reprimand; Monetary Sanction; Firmwide citation review; CLE · Penalty: 6000 USD · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2026-03-02 · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-02-24 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2026-02-18 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-11-18 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-10-22 · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-10-10 · Outcome: Magistrate Judge's recommendation adopted; in forma pauperis denied; plaintiff ordered to pay $405 filing fee within 10 days or the case will be dismissed. · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-09-03 · Outcome: Order to show cause · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-08-28 · Outcome: Court denied defendant's motions; sentencing ordered to proceed as scheduled; no professional sanctions imposed. · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-05-02 · Outcome: Warning · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-04-01 · Outcome: Argument ignored · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2024-11-25 · Outcome: Monetary fine + Mandatory AI-related CLE Course + Disclosure to Client · Penalty: 2000 USD · AI tool: Claude.
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.