What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Dunn v. Old Orchard Ctr., Ltd., 306 Ill. App. 3d 75 (1999) for a proposition the actual case (People v. Maurice Dunn) does not support; court identified the citation as misattributed/misrepresented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Arnold v. Hoyt, 384 F. Supp. 566 (1974) and quoted language not found in the actual opinion; court notes the citation corresponds to Geldermann & Co., Inc. v. Dussault and the quoted passage is absent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court and defendant identified numerous non-existent or fictitious cases in plaintiffs' briefs (the motion alleges over twenty fake cases), including an uncited/reference-only 'Fausett v. Walgreen Co' with no supporting citation or record.

Sanction teardown · CA Illinois (1d), USA · 2026-04-15

Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes Chicken

What happened

In CA Illinois (1d), USA, a filing relied on Centient AI to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiffs cited Dunn v. Old Orchard Ctr., Ltd., 306 Ill. App. 3d 75 (1999) for a proposition the actual case (People v. Maurice Dunn) does not support; court identified the citation as misattributed/misrepresented.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiffs cited Arnold v. Hoyt, 384 F. Supp. 566 (1974) and quoted language not found in the actual opinion; court notes the citation corresponds to Geldermann & Co., Inc. v. Dussault and the quoted passage is absent.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Court and defendant identified numerous non-existent or fictitious cases in plaintiffs' briefs (the motion alleges over twenty fake cases), including an uncited/reference-only 'Fausett v. Walgreen Co' with no supporting citation or record.

Which AI tool

Centient AI. 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

Brief 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/1996/Strong_v._Zhuba_USA_16_April_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