What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Court identified numerous non-existent quoted passages in Plaintiff's original motion and struck it; the quoted language was false and unsupported by the cited cases. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Smith v. Sprint decision with a Westlaw pin and date that do not correspond to the asserted district or holding. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited an Oklahoma Bar Ass'n Benefield decision with a Pacific Reporter citation that actually points to an unrelated Oregon case; the asserted language/authority was not supported. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Green v. Tulane Educ. Fund opinion purportedly from the W.D. Okla. in 2020 that does not exist at that citation and does not support the alleged proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Geb with a Pacific Reporter citation that instead points to an Alaska case; the citation did not support the claimed proposition about dual representation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Minter with a Pacific Reporter citation that corresponds to unrelated authority; the cited Minter authorities did not support the asserted point on arbitration/attorney-witness issues.

Sanction teardown · N.D. Oklahoma, USA · 2025-08-26

Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation, et al. (2)

What happened

In N.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:

False Quotes (Case Law)

Court identified numerous non-existent quoted passages in Plaintiff's original motion and struck it; the quoted language was false and unsupported by the cited cases.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Plaintiff cited a Smith v. Sprint decision with a Westlaw pin and date that do not correspond to the asserted district or holding.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Plaintiff cited an Oklahoma Bar Ass'n Benefield decision with a Pacific Reporter citation that actually points to an unrelated Oregon case; the asserted language/authority was not supported.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Plaintiff cited a Green v. Tulane Educ. Fund opinion purportedly from the W.D. Okla. in 2020 that does not exist at that citation and does not support the alleged proposition.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Plaintiff cited Geb with a Pacific Reporter citation that instead points to an Alaska case; the citation did not support the claimed proposition about dual representation.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Plaintiff cited Minter with a Pacific Reporter citation that corresponds to unrelated authority; the cited Minter authorities did not support the asserted point on arbitration/attorney-witness issues.

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

Show Cause 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/836/Jackson_v._BOK_Financial_Corp_USA_29_September_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template