Arizona

Kevin D. Turnage v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff purports to quote 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b) for a 180-day decision requirement, but that language does not appear; court notes the correct provision is likely 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)(2). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gao v. United States, 2019 WL 11199934 (D. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2019); the Court was unable to locate this case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Miller v. United States, 2009 WL 1532834 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2009); the Court was unable to locate this case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on 'Yomi v. United States Dept. of Health & Human Services, 970 8754 (D. Kan. 2022),' which the Court could not locate and treated as a fictitious citation. || Fabricated: Other | Court observed the plaintiff cited additional unlocatable or fictitious authorities beyond those specifically identified.

Federal Trade Commission v. James D. Noland, Jr., et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Individual Defendants’ filings contained hallucinated or otherwise inaccurate case citations (no specific fabricated citations listed in the order).

Chelsea Montes v. Suns Legacy Partners LLC

Fabricated: Case Law | Response to motion to dismiss included 'McIntyre v. Phx. Newspapers, Inc.' citation that was fabricated/mis-cited as filed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply in support of anonymity contained multiple 'Doe v. ...' citations (e.g., Amazon) presented with Westlaw/West reporter info that did not exist as cited and were removed or corrected. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply included 'Doe v. Maricopa County Community College District, 2017 WL 4460441 (D. Ariz. Oct. 5, 2017)' that counsel could not identify as a real corresponding opinion; court treated it as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Doe v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 2022 WL 3447983 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2022)' as authority; court found the citation was misreferenced/ fabricated as used. || Fabricated: Case Law | Initial complaint cited a non-existent case and parenthetical about Equal Pay Act plausibility; court found the citation fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Response to motion to dismiss cited 'Pizzo v. City of Chandler' as a 2021 D. Ariz. opinion; court determined the citation was fabricated as presented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Filings contained quoted phrases attributed to Ahanchian that did not appear verbatim in the opinion; court found they were paraphrased or presented as false quotations. || False Quotes: Case Law | Filings included fabricated/direct-quotation-style phrases attributed to other real cases (e.g., Briones, Sibley, Valley Eng'rs) that were not direct quotes in those opinions.

Segui v. Moniz

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' counsel cited a nonexistent Arizona appellate decision 'Barker v. Brown & Brown, 210 Ariz. 321, 110 P.3d 1011 (Ct. App. 2005)'; the Court found the citation fabricated, noted the legal proposition was incorrect, and ordered counsel to show cause under Rule 11.

Hunter v. TForce Freight Incorporated

In the Matter of the Estate of Kuerschner

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited “Orlandini v. Crawford (Arizona Court of Appeals),” which the court could not locate and concluded does not appear to exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant quoted language attributed to Wallace that does not appear in the Wallace decision and miscited the citation (pointed to Zambrano instead); court identified the quoted language as false and the citation as incorrect. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant claimed Takieh v. O'Meara vacated sanctions; the court noted Takieh actually upheld sanctions and appellant's description mischaracterized the decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited In re Estate of Stewart for a proposition about cautious fee awards, but the court observed Stewart does not discuss attorney fees and the citation was unsupported.

In the Matter of the Estate of Arturo Lopez

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's briefs included fabricated legal citations and defective citations; the court concluded several citations contained substantial defects and appeared fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant's briefs contained fabricated or false quotations attributed to legal authorities; the court found the quotations unsupported and likely AI-generated.

Perry v. Exeter Finance LLC

Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed the citation 'Chavez v. Bank of Am., 2014 WL 2159382 (D. Ariz. 2014)' provided by Plaintiff does not return the case identified. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court noted Plaintiff misattributes an apparently fabricated quotation to a real case, citing 'Matterhorn, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 763 F.2d 866, 868 (7th Cir. 1985)'. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed the citation 'Anderson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002)' provided by Plaintiff does not return the case identified.

In re termination of parental rights (HK)

False Quotes: Case Law | Mother cited JS-501568, 177 Ariz. at 577, attributing multiple sentences the court could not find, including 'a parent's ability to maintain a relationship must be judged by what they do, not what another parent does or does not do' and 'minimal efforts do not preclude abandonment ... sporadic or infrequent contact is not normal parental contact.' The court concluded these quotes are not in that opinion. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Mother's brief quoted A.R.S. § 8-531(1) as stating: '[a]bandonment is measured by a parent's conduct, not the parent's subjective intent.' The court found this quoted statutory language does not appear in § 8-531(1). || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Mother's brief attributed language to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) stating abandonment is established when a parent has failed to maintain a normal parental relationship 'without just cause.' The court found the statute does not contain the quoted phrasing. || False Quotes: Case Law | Mother's brief attributed a non-existent quote to Raymond F. v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 378, ¶ 21 (App. 2010): '[a] parent who creates barriers to contact through substance abuse cannot claim just cause for his failure to maintain a relationship.' The court found this quotation does not appear in Raymond F.

Gerow v. Falcone

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se plaintiff cited AROK Construction Co. v. Shipley, 235 Ariz. 163, 166, 329 P.3d 1051, 1054 (Ct. App. 2014); the Court found that the case does not exist at that citation and could not locate the quoted language, and thus did not rely on it.

Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 35 at 4) cited a non-existent case; defendant flagged it as fictitious in reply and sought sanctions; plaintiff later filed a notice withdrawing the citation; court did not impose sanctions.

In re the Matter of: Abius Rosas Carreon

False Quotes: Case Law | Court found Father's brief contained fabricated quotations attributed to cited cases; quotations were not supported by the authorities. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed several incomplete and defective citations in Father's brief suggesting invented or fabricated authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified misrepresentation of authorities where cited cases were used to support premises the Court found unsupported by those authorities.

Offen Petroleum v. L&J Express

Fabricated: Case Law | Motion cites a nonexistent case (case cited does not exist). || False Quotes: Case Law | Motion contains quoted materials that do not appear in the cases cited (quotes attributed to cited cases are not in those opinions). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion includes case citations that do not support the explanatory phrase presented alongside the citation (misstates the holdings/support).

Ihor Chopko v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found multiple fabricated quotations in appellant's briefs and described them as unsupported or false. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found fictitious case citations among appellant's legal citations (fictitious cases or false case citations) and noted substantial defects in those citations.

Mykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona

Fabricated: Case Law

Volesky v. Department of Child Safety

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Dependency of D.F.-M., 236 Ariz. 33, 36 (App. 2014)'; the court explained the name corresponds to a Washington juvenile case (157 Wash.App.179) while the Arizona reporter citation refers to an unrelated Arizona criminal case (State v. Flores), concluding the citation is incorrect/fabricated.

Oluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a cited authority 'Blessinger v. DPS' in support of a Title VI argument; the Court stated it was unable to locate the case and deemed the citation erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ryan v. Cty. of Maricopa' in support of her reading of A.R.S. § 41-1463; the Court stated it was unable to locate the case and treated the citation as erroneous.

Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

False Quotes: Case Law | Cited district court decision Hobbs does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Lubin was quoted as forbidding ALJs from disregarding moderate CPP limitations without explanation; that language is not in Lubin. || False Quotes: Case Law | Garrison was cited as holding ALJs must connect symptoms to functional limitations in the RFC; no such express holding appears at p. 1017. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Garrison was quoted with an added phrase not in the case; only the first portion (as a parenthetical to a Seventh Circuit case) appears, the latter part does not. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Lingenfelter was quoted as stating narcotic pain treatment is not inconsistent with disabling pain testimony; no such quote exists. || False Quotes: Case Law | Trevizo was cited as requiring consideration of waxing and waning impairments; the case contains no such discussion or requirement. || False Quotes: Case Law | Revels was quoted as saying fibromyalgia symptoms are 'entirely subjective' and must be evaluated accordingly; that language does not appear in Revels. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Garrison was cited for a requirement that the RFC reflect all impairments in combination; p. 1016 does not contain such a requirement. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Barrett was cited (and mislabeled as Ninth Circuit) for remand due to obesity’s impact on fibromyalgia/DDD; the case does not mention obesity, fibromyalgia, or disc disease. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Orn was cited as requiring the ALJ to explain how impairments are accommodated in the RFC; no such requirement appears at p. 639. || False Quotes: Case Law | Revels was attributed the quote that fibromyalgia symptoms are entirely subjective and have no lab tests; that quoted language does not appear in Revels. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brink was cited for simple, routine tasks limits; the quoted phrase is slightly different and the proposition is inapposite. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited distri

2026 Chatbot Legislation — Arizona HB 2311 [URL: https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/84047]

2026 chatbot legislation requiring involves therapy/mental health — Passed Chamber

Arizona HB 4098

Arizona legislation addressing AI systems with obligations for deployers, developers, and distributors. This legislation has been signed into law.

Arizona SB 1786

Arizona legislation addressing AI systems with obligations for deployers, developers, and distributors. This legislation has been signed into law.

Wireless Investors LLC v. Semtech Incorporated, et al.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to authorities that the Court found did not exist in the cited opinions (nonexistent quotes). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the holdings of cited cases and relied on authorities that did not support its arguments.

Jodell Dodge v. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited case does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Case exists but the pincite and support cited are incorrect; quoted proposition not at the cited page. || False Quotes: Case Law | Case exists but the quoted language does not appear at the cited location; pincite incorrect. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the brief attributed language to the case that does not appear there (misquoted/attributed). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Quoted language mostly correct but the brief improperly added wording ('discriminatory') and misattributed internally quoted language. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded the cited case was relied upon for a proposition it does not actually support; the brief misstates the case's holdings.

Robert Cole Stemkowski Goldman v. Arizona Board of Regents

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to Johnson v. City of Shelby that does not appear in that decision; Court notes the quoted text is not in the cited opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Pearson v. Callahan while characterizing it as supporting the opposite proposition; Court explains Pearson actually endorses early resolution of qualified-immunity questions. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent Ninth Circuit opinion to support the proposition that qualified-immunity dismissals are premature; Court and defendants could not locate the case and characterized it as hallucinatory.

Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Contreras v. BlueCross Blue Shield of Ariz., No. CV-20-01915-PHX-JAT, 2021 WL 252719, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 26, 2021)'; the court found the case number/Westlaw citation do not return the identified case and treated it as a likely fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Williams v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., No. CV-19-01834-PHX-GMS, 2020 WL 4016022, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 16, 2020)'; the court found the case number/Westlaw citation do not return the identified case and treated it as a likely fabricated citation.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

False Quotes: Case Law | Opening Brief contained a quotation attributed to an existing case that did not actually appear in that form; the portion was stricken. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Opening Brief mischaracterized a proposition from an existing case; the portion was stricken. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening Brief cited a non-existent case (fabricated case citation); the portion was stricken. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Opening Brief miscited a case that did not address the asserted issue; the portion was stricken.

Pineda v. Campos

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Cardoso v. Soldo' with reporter information that actually corresponds to a different opinion (Lund v. Myers) and the cited authority did not support counsel's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Arjona v. Arjona to support a proposition about orders of protection, but the Arjona memorandum decision did not involve domestic violence or an order of protection and was vacated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Leon v. Plaza with incorrect reporter information and mischaracterized the case's holdings regarding naming specific incidents and statutory offenses. || False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel attributed quotations to Savord v. Morton that do not appear in that opinion; the court found the quoted language absent from Savord.

Gustafson v. Amazon.com

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case to argue the Hague Service Convention permits email service; the Court noted the authority does not exist and warned of Rule 11 sanctions. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff asserted a February 18, 2025 letter (Exhibit A) where 'Sophia' confirmed representing all four foreign defendants, but no such letter was provided; the only attached July 19, 2024 letter stated she represents only one defendant.

Arnaoudoff v. Tivity Health Incorporated

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff’s objection repeatedly cited nonexistent cases, which the Court labeled as fake cases and agreed to disregard after Defendants flagged the issue. || Fabricated: Case Law | To argue that lack of counsel made the settlement involuntary, Plaintiff relied on nonexistent case law; the Court found no such authority exists. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Alcaide v. Thomas as supporting her position on unenforceability, but the case actually held the parties were bound by their settlement. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff admitted she used ChatGPT and external tools that produced erroneous, fake case citations in her objections.

Transamerica Life v. Williams

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited case does not exist and was used to support Williams’s arguments. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Tenth Circuit case does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Fourth Circuit case does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Ninth Circuit case does not exist. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Court held Williams misapplied these statutes; they concern assignment of payment for services and nonforfeiture options, not insurer interest obligations.

Arizona 2024 Senate Bill 1359

Prohibits creating and distributing deceptive deepfakes of election candidates without clear AI-generated content disclosure within 90 days before elections. Exempts satire, parody, and interactive computer services. Imposes civil penalties for non-disclosure violations. Defines key terms including "creator" and "synthetic media."

Arizona 2024 House Bill 2394

Prohibits digital impersonation using AI to deceive voters in Arizona elections. Allows candidates or citizens to seek declaratory relief within two years of impersonation. Shields service providers from liability for third-party content. Requires clear and convincing evidence for relief.

City of Tempe Ethical Artificial Intelligence Policy

Establishes guidelines in Tempe for ethical AI use, emphasizing transparency, fairness, and accountability. Requires departments and Information Technology to collaborate on AI reviews. Mandates regular assessments and stakeholder engagement. Ensures adherence to legal standards and privacy protection. Promotes AI literacy and compliance.

An Act Providing for Transferring and Renumbering; Amending Section 41-2414, Arizona Revised Statutes, as Transferred and Renumbered; Relating to Crime Victims

Creates a law enforcement crime victims notification system to (a) automatically update crime victims on their crime reports, investigations, and cases, and (b) respond to citizens' questions and comments through an artificial intelligence virtual agent.

State of Arizona Senate Bill 1565, An Act Amending Sections 16-442, 16-552 and 16-621, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Conduct of Elections.

Bans the use of artificial intelligence in counting, processing, or adjudicating ballots, and in verifying voters' affidavits, in Arizona.