Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves

Court
SC Oklahoma
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2026-05-27
AI tool
ChatGPT
Outcome
Public reprimand
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited to support that general objections are not considered; court found no case with that combination of style and proposition (fabricated use). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited as confirming broad discovery rights though the cited Federal Appendix entry did not discuss discovery; the cited authority was misapplied/misrepresented. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as refusing to delay deposition; court and plaintiff could only locate an unrelated 1939 Alabama Court of Appeals traffic decision with that style (fabricated for the proposition cited). || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as rejecting an inmate's request to delay a deposition; the court found no such case or similar citation for that proposition (fabricated). || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited as granting a Rule 30(a)(2)(B) motion and finding no good cause to delay deposition; Westlaw number led to an unrelated maritime case and no supporting discovery authority was found (fabricated).

Sanction teardown · SC Oklahoma, USA · 2026-05-27

State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves

What happened

In SC Oklahoma, USA, a filing relied on ChatGPT to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited to support that general objections are not considered; court found no case with that combination of style and proposition (fabricated use).
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited as confirming broad discovery rights though the cited Federal Appendix entry did not discuss discovery; the cited authority was misapplied/misrepresented.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited as refusing to delay deposition; court and plaintiff could only locate an unrelated 1939 Alabama Court of Appeals traffic decision with that style (fabricated for the proposition cited).
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited as rejecting an inmate's request to delay a deposition; the court found no such case or similar citation for that proposition (fabricated).
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Cited as granting a Rule 30(a)(2)(B) motion and finding no good cause to delay deposition; Westlaw number led to an unrelated maritime case and no supporting discovery authority was found (fabricated).

Which AI tool

ChatGPT. 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

Public reprimand

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/2227/STATE_OF_OKLAHOMA_ex_rel._OBA_v._REEVES.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2227/STATE_OF_OKLAHOMA_ex_rel._OBA_v._REEVES.pdf

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 checkerBack 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 — $49Sanctions-motion template