Sanction teardown · W.D. Oklahoma, USA · 2026-06-24
Allahgehovah Jones v. City of Moore, et al.
What happened
In W.D. Oklahoma, 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 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 677 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2009), which the Court found does not correspond to any legitimate case.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Plaintiff cited Van Scoy v. Process Control Corp., 113 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1997), which the Court found to be a non-existent/incorrect citation.
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Plaintiff cited Cok v. Family Dollar Stores of Ind., L.P., 2013 WL 1187553 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 21, 2013), which the Court determined did not correspond to a legitimate case as cited.
-
False Quotes (Case Law)Plaintiff attributed the quote 'Officers who lie … are not entitled to qualified immunity' to Robison v. Via, but the Court found Robison did not contain that statement.
-
False Quotes (Case Law)Plaintiff included several other direct quotes (e.g., 'misleading characterizations of the record … constitute sanctionable conduct'; 'deliberate attempts to exploit a litigant’s disabilities constitute bad faith') that the Court found to be fabricated or untraceable to the cited authorities.
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
Not specified in source record.
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/2481/Jones_v._Moore_USA_24_June_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).