| Court - Judge Name |
Effective Date |
Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
| E.D. Mich. – Judge F. Kay Behm | 6/5/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In the consolidated actions of Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC and AP Electric, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC (No. 4:23-cv-11342-FKB-EAS), the court flagged the plaintiffs’ use of various fictitious citations in their summary judgment briefings. As a result of these “generative artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations,” Judge Behm identified specific portions of the brief containing the suspected hallucinations and ordered the plaintiffs to either file (i) copies of the quoted cases which the court had flagged as being potential hallucinations, (ii) a short supplemental brief with “verifiable legal authority” that matches the propositions associated with the fictitious citations, or (iii) an admission that there is no existing authority to match the citations.
|
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences | ||||
| E.D. Mich. Judge Shalina D. Kumar | 9/11/2023 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Ruggierlo, Velardo, Burke, Reizen & Fox, P.C. v. Lancaster, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160755 (E.D. Mich., Sept. 11, 2023), the Court, in a footnote, states that the pro se defendant cites three non-existent cases in his objections. Although declining to “speculate” whether these “fabrications” were the result of “[defendant’s] imagination, a generative artificial intelligence tool’s hallucination, both, or something else entirely,” it concluded that “conduct such as citing made-up law may result in significant sanctions,” no matter the source.
|
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Michigan
Jump to:
