What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case in their briefs (one of fifteen such fabricated citations identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court stated the cited cases do not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs misrepresented a quotation from a real case in their briefs (one of seven such misquotes identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court flagged the quotations as misrepresented.

Details

Order to show cause is here. Final judgment on costs is here. Final Opinion and Order is here. (Defendants prevailed partly because brief full of hallucinated material had been struck.)

Sanction teardown · D. Oregon, USA · 2026-03-23

Couvrette v. Wisnovsky

What happened

In D. Oregon, 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)

Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case in their briefs (one of fifteen such fabricated citations identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court stated the cited cases do not exist.
False Quotes (Case Law)

Plaintiffs misrepresented a quotation from a real case in their briefs (one of seven such misquotes identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court flagged the quotations as misrepresented.

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

Briefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudice (monetary penalty: 110204 USD.)

Additional detail

Order to show cause is here. Final judgment on costs is here. Final Opinion and Order is here. (Defendants prevailed partly because brief full of hallucinated material had been struck.)

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/1170/Couvrette_v._Wisnoksy_USA_12_December_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).