Judicial & Litigation Database.
Comprehensive tracker of AI-related court rulings, sanctions, and legal precedents across jurisdictions.
| LOC | Date ↓ | Case Title | Summary | AI Tool | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | 2025-12-03 | TA Grenoble (FR) — generative ai pleading criticised | The tribunal noted that the application’s lack of clarity likely resulted from it being drafted using a so-called generative AI tool that was wholly unsuited to that use. It also noted duplicated formulations and fanciful case-law references. The tribunal cons... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
 | 2025-11-26 | m.d. fla. (us) — suspected ai citations: fees, cle, and bar referral | The court found that counsel filed a TRO motion containing fabricated cases, quotations not found in cited decisions, and authorities unrelated to the propositions asserted. The opposing party argued the filings bore hallmarks of AI drafting, and the court not... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
 | 2025-11-19 | RBNNE (nl) — suspected chatgpt citations copied without checks | In a dispute about setting aside an estate division, the court examined case-law citations relied on by the claimants and found they were inaccurate, misdated, or irrelevant to the legal issue. The court stated it suspected that the citations or ‘findspots’ s... | ChatGPT (suspected) | View |
 | 2025-11-19 | FC (CA) — $500 costs after AI misuse allegation and citation errors | The Federal Court addressed an allegation by the respondent that applicant’s counsel had misused AI without declaring it. The court highlighted that counsel failed to correct a mis-citation (to a prior decision) and did not respond to the AI-misuse allegation... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
| | 2025-11-06 | RBGEL (nl) — suspected chatgpt case citations disregarded | One day before the hearing, the claimant’s representative cited numerous purported case-law references, including ECLI numbers. The court verified that many references were inconsistent with the cited dates and ECLI numbers, irrelevant, or did not exist, and ... | ChatGPT (suspected) | View |
 | 2025-11-03 | OGH (AT) — incorrect citations in criminal complaint | The Supreme Court rejected a fundamental-rights complaint because the filing did not satisfy minimum reasoning requirements and contained numerous incorrect or non-existent citations and quotation fragments. The decision does not attribute the errors to any A... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
| | 2025-10-28 | TA Besançon (FR) — chatgpt output not a petition | The claimant submitted the results of a ChatGPT search about how to challenge a building-permit refusal. The tribunal held that those ChatGPT results could not be treated as an administrative court petition, but only as guidance on how to file one. Because the... | ChatGPT | View |
| | 2025-10-27 | d. or. (us) — hallucinated citation triggers rule 11 show cause | The court identified that a key authority cited to support an interim fee request was “totally fake” and described as a hallucinated case, with attributes consistent with generative AI output. The court explained that reliance on fake precedent can violate Ru... | ChatGPT (suspected) | View |
 | 2025-10-21 | tar lombardia — ai jurisprudence search; non-pertinent citations; bar referral | The tribunal found that the decisions cited in support of the claimant’s arguments were not pertinent and that the quoted holdings were referable to other jurisprudential contexts. During the hearing, counsel stated that the case-law research had been carried ... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
 | 2025-10-15 | NSS (CZ) — fictitious authority citation; “who or what wrote it” irrelevant | The Supreme Administrative Court identified that a key authority cited in the cassation complaint did not exist as presented. The court stated that it is irrelevant “who or what” drafted the statements; the litigant bears responsibility for the submitted cont... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |