What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel stated that no authority held that the deeds conveyed the railroad’s fee-simple title and called the government’s position frivolous. The court found the statement false because McCotter held that a materially similar railroad deed conveyed an unqualified fee-simple estate, and Bevirt reached the same conclusion for materially similar source deeds. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Beasley as support for a rule that railroads could acquire only easements. The court explained that Beasley involved a deed granting only a right of way to an entity lacking authority to build or operate a railroad, and therefore did not address whether a deed conveying a strip of land to an actual railroad conveyed fee-simple title. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel asserted that under North Carolina law the only interest a railroad could acquire was a right-of-way easement. The court held that the cited authorities did not support that categorical proposition and that McCotter and Craig recognized that a voluntary railroad deed could convey fee-simple title rather than merely an easement. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel relied on Tighe, Sturgeon, and Sparrow for the proposition that railroad conveyances necessarily create easements. The court found those cases addressed the scope, width, use, or mode of acquisition of already-established easements, not whether a voluntary deed conveying land transferred fee-simple title. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel asserted that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-1 did not apply to servitudes such as easements. The court found no supporting North Carolina authority and held that the statute establishes a fee-simple presumption for conveyances of real estate; it further found that Vickers applied a fee-construction principle rather than supporting counsel’s limitation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel invoked N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-44.2 and McDonald’s to support a presumption that railroad strips are easements. The court held that those authorities presuppose an already-existing railroad easement and address ownership after abandonment, not the antecedent question whether the source deeds conveyed an easement or fee-simple estate.

Sanction teardown · Court of Federal Claims, USA · 2026-07-07

Penland v. United States

What happened

In Court of Federal Claims, 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:

Misrepresented (Case Law)

Counsel stated that no authority held that the deeds conveyed the railroad’s fee-simple title and called the government’s position frivolous. The court found the statement false because McCotter held that a materially similar railroad deed conveyed an unqualified fee-simple estate, and Bevirt reached the same conclusion for materially similar source deeds.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Counsel cited Beasley as support for a rule that railroads could acquire only easements. The court explained that Beasley involved a deed granting only a right of way to an entity lacking authority to build or operate a railroad, and therefore did not address whether a deed conveying a strip of land to an actual railroad conveyed fee-simple title.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Counsel asserted that under North Carolina law the only interest a railroad could acquire was a right-of-way easement. The court held that the cited authorities did not support that categorical proposition and that McCotter and Craig recognized that a voluntary railroad deed could convey fee-simple title rather than merely an easement.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Counsel relied on Tighe, Sturgeon, and Sparrow for the proposition that railroad conveyances necessarily create easements. The court found those cases addressed the scope, width, use, or mode of acquisition of already-established easements, not whether a voluntary deed conveying land transferred fee-simple title.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Counsel asserted that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-1 did not apply to servitudes such as easements. The court found no supporting North Carolina authority and held that the statute establishes a fee-simple presumption for conveyances of real estate; it further found that Vickers applied a fee-construction principle rather than supporting counsel’s limitation.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Counsel invoked N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-44.2 and McDonald’s to support a presumption that railroad strips are easements. The court held that those authorities presuppose an already-existing railroad easement and address ownership after abandonment, not the antecedent question whether the source deeds conveyed an easement or fee-simple estate.

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

Monetary Fine; Adverse Costs Order (monetary penalty: 5000 USD.)

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/3196/Penland_v._United_States_USA_07-07-2026.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