What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited non-existent cases as key authorities to meet the clearly established prong in qualified immunity; the Court found the cases do not exist and sanctioned by dismissing federal claims. || Misrepresented: Other | Hill's motion mischaracterized the prior order as denying state-law immunity, though the Court had only allowed discovery before ruling. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Hill allegedly told a judge in seeking an arrest warrant that J.B. was 'flipping tables' in the cafeteria; the Court notes plaintiff’s video-based account raises concerns this statement was false or made with reckless disregard.

Details

AI UseThe court found that several of the cases cited by the plaintiff in her briefing opposing Officer Hill’s qualified immunity defense did not exist. Although Newbern suggested the citations may have been innocent mistakes, she did not challenge the finding of fabrication. No AI tool was admitted or named, but the structure and specificity of the invented cases strongly suggest generative AI use.Hallucination DetailsThe fabricated authorities were not background references, but “key authorities” cited to establish that Hill’s alleged conduct violated clearly established law. The court observed that the fake cases initially appeared to be unusually on-point compared to the rest of plaintiff’s citations, which raised suspicion. Upon scrutiny, it confirmed they did not exist.Ruling/SanctionThe court dismissed the federal claims against Officer Hill as a partial sanction for plaintiff’s fabrication of legal authority and failure to meet the burden under qualified immunity. However, it declined to dismiss the entire case, citing the interest of the minor child involved and the relevance of potential state law claims. It permitted discovery to proceed on those claims to determine whether Officer Hill acted with malice or engaged in other conduct falling outside the scope of Mississippi Tort Claims Act immunity.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court found that plaintiff’s citation of fictitious cases undermined her effort to meet the demanding “clearly established” standard. It rejected her claim that the fabrication was an innocent mistake and viewed it in light of her broader litigation conduct, which included excessive filings and disregard for procedural limits.

Sanction teardown · N.D. Mississippi, USA · 2025-05-12

Newbern v. Desoto County School District et al.

What happened

In N.D. Mississippi, 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 non-existent cases as key authorities to meet the clearly established prong in qualified immunity; the Court found the cases do not exist and sanctioned by dismissing federal claims.
Misrepresented (Other)

Hill's motion mischaracterized the prior order as denying state-law immunity, though the Court had only allowed discovery before ruling.
Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)

Hill allegedly told a judge in seeking an arrest warrant that J.B. was 'flipping tables' in the cafeteria; the Court notes plaintiff’s video-based account raises concerns this statement was false or made with reckless disregard.

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

Case dismissed, in part as a sanction for fabrication of legal authorities

Additional detail

AI UseThe court found that several of the cases cited by the plaintiff in her briefing opposing Officer Hill’s qualified immunity defense did not exist. Although Newbern suggested the citations may have been innocent mistakes, she did not challenge the finding of fabrication. No AI tool was admitted or named, but the structure and specificity of the invented cases strongly suggest generative AI use.Hallucination DetailsThe fabricated authorities were not background references, but “key authorities” cited to establish that Hill’s alleged conduct violated clearly established law. The court observed that the fake cases initially appeared to be unusually on-point compared to the rest of plaintiff’s citations, which raised suspicion. Upon scrutiny, it confirmed they did not exist.Ruling/SanctionThe court dismissed the federal claims against Officer Hill as a partial sanction for plaintiff’s fabrication of legal authority and failure to meet the burden under qualified immunity. However, it declined to dismiss the entire case, citing the interest of the minor child involved and the relevance of potential state law claims. It permitted discovery to proceed on those claims to determine whether Officer Hill acted with malice or engaged in other conduct falling outside the scope of Mississippi Tort Claims Act immunity.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court found that plaintiff’s citation of fictitious cases undermined her effort to meet the demanding “clearly established” standard. It rejected her claim that the fabrication was an innocent mistake and viewed it in light of her broader litigation conduct, which included excessive filings and disregard for procedural limits.

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/338/Newbern_v._Desoto_ND_Mississippi_USA_May_12_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).