What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Arnold v. Burger King Corp., 719 F.2d 63, 65 (4th Cir. 1983) as a per curiam opinion reversing a fee award; the court notes Arnold is a real case but not per curiam and it affirmed a fee award. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited "Bruce & Tanya & Assocs., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 795 F. App'x 157, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2019)" but 795 F. App'x 157 is Wilborn v. Mansukhani and Bruce & Tanya's correct reporter citation is different and its holding was misstated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted language attributed to EEOC v. Great Steaks, Inc., 667 F.3d 510, 516 (4th Cir. 2012) (e.g., 'fees for defendants appropriate only in "egregious cases"'), but the opinion does not contain the quoted language.

Sanction teardown · D. Maryland, USA · 2025-12-16

Taylor v. Prince George’s County, Maryland

What happened

In D. Maryland, 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)

Plaintiffs cited Arnold v. Burger King Corp., 719 F.2d 63, 65 (4th Cir. 1983) as a per curiam opinion reversing a fee award; the court notes Arnold is a real case but not per curiam and it affirmed a fee award.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Plaintiffs cited "Bruce & Tanya & Assocs., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 795 F. App'x 157, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2019)" but 795 F. App'x 157 is Wilborn v. Mansukhani and Bruce & Tanya's correct reporter citation is different and its holding was misstated.
False Quotes (Case Law)

Plaintiffs quoted language attributed to EEOC v. Great Steaks, Inc., 667 F.3d 510, 516 (4th Cir. 2012) (e.g., 'fees for defendants appropriate only in "egregious cases"'), but the opinion does not contain the quoted language.

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

Not specified in source record.

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/1194/Taylor_v._Prince_Goerge_Country_USA_16_December_2025.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