What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'John Arthur Boyd v. Charles Ball, No. 108,817 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2014),' which the opinion states does not exist and treats as a fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'State v. White, No. 108,817 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)' using the same docket number as the fabricated Ball citation; court flagged the mismatch and nonexistence/relevance. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant listed 'Smith v. Kansas Department of Revenue, No. 119,429 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018),' which the opinion indicates appears not to exist with that docket and is a fabricated or incorrect citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Wiles v. American Family Insurance Co., 302 Kan. ___, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' and described it as reversing a default; court explained the citation is incorrect/mischaracterized and actually corresponds to a different opinion (Mashaney). || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Appellant relied on a Court of Appeals version of Garcia v. Ball (50 Kan. App. 2d 197, 323 P.3d 872 (2014)); court noted that citation was overruled by the Kansas Supreme Court and thus is outdated/overturned authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' but mischaracterized its holding as reversing a default judgment; court explained Mashaney involved malpractice/judgment on the pleadings, not a default reversal.

Sanction teardown · CA Kansas, USA · 2026-01-16

Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn

What happened

In CA Kansas, 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)

Appellant cited 'John Arthur Boyd v. Charles Ball, No. 108,817 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2014),' which the opinion states does not exist and treats as a fabricated citation.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Appellant cited 'State v. White, No. 108,817 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014)' using the same docket number as the fabricated Ball citation; court flagged the mismatch and nonexistence/relevance.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Appellant listed 'Smith v. Kansas Department of Revenue, No. 119,429 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018),' which the opinion indicates appears not to exist with that docket and is a fabricated or incorrect citation.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Appellant cited 'Wiles v. American Family Insurance Co., 302 Kan. ___, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' and described it as reversing a default; court explained the citation is incorrect/mischaracterized and actually corresponds to a different opinion (Mashaney).
Outdated Advice (Overturned Case Law)

Appellant relied on a Court of Appeals version of Garcia v. Ball (50 Kan. App. 2d 197, 323 P.3d 872 (2014)); court noted that citation was overruled by the Kansas Supreme Court and thus is outdated/overturned authority.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Appellant cited 'Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 355 P.3d 667 (2015)' but mischaracterized its holding as reversing a default judgment; court explained Mashaney involved malpractice/judgment on the pleadings, not a default reversal.

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

Warning

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/1364/Riverchase_LLC_v_Paula_Goldwyn_USA_16_January_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