Cite Jail

Real court filings. Every cite analyzed.

0
Filings in Jail
0
Citations Checked
0
Flagged
0
Fabricated Cases
0
Fabricated Quotes

Fabricated cases. Invented quotes. Holdings cited in reverse. Overruled authority passed off as good law. Opine verifies every citation exists, supports the proposition it's cited for, and is still good law.

Coverage: California state courts and the 9th Circuit — the jurisdictions where Opine's case-law data is comprehensive.

0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

Gamez v. County of Fresno

Opposition to Motion for More Definite Statement E.D. Cal. — 1:26-cv-00297-KES-EPGDecided
5 Fabricated Cases
  • Five of nine case authorities cited cannot be verified to exist: Barajas v. Progressive, Holmes v. City of San Diego, Robinson v. Boren, Koerner v. Vigilant Ins., and Griffin v. County of Humboldt.
  • Every flagged citation in this filing is a fabrication — there are no mischaracterizations, just invented authority presented as precedent.
Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

Colbert v. County of Riverside

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss C.D. Cal. — 5:25-cv-01655-SPDecided
1 Fabricated Quote 5 Mischaracterized 6 Potentially Stretched
  • A quoted passage attributed to California Government Code § 845.4 does not appear in the statute.
  • Four cases cited for state-law immunity rules — Lucas v. City of Long Beach, Watson v. State of California, Lowman v. County of Los Angeles, and Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. — are applied beyond their holdings.
  • Government Code § 815.2 is stretched to cover liability theories the statute does not authorize.
Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

Estate of Khallid Muhammad v. Estate of Tupac Shakur

Opposition to Motion to Intervene C.D. Cal. — 2:25-cv-02540-JLS-JPRDecided
3 Fabricated Cases 2 Fabricated Quotes 2 Mischaracterized 7 Potentially Stretched
  • Three cases — Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Amundson v. Catello, and Gonzalez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC — could not be verified to exist.
  • Quotes attributed to Donnelly v. Glickman and Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv. do not appear anywhere in those opinions.
  • Seven intervention authorities are potentially stretched beyond their holdings or applied outside their doctrinal context.
Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

Appellant's Opening Brief on the Merits Cal. Ct. App., 3d Dist. — C100087Decided
9 Fabricated Cases 4 Fabricated Statutes 2 Fabricated Quotes 8 Mischaracterized 10 Potentially Stretched
  • Nine cited authorities — including County of Sacramento v. Superior Court, Baird v. Superior Court, and McDonough v. Superior Court — could not be verified to exist.
  • Four statute citations are fabricated or refer to repealed sections, including a nonexistent Commercial Code § 1308 and long-repealed CCP §§ 2030 and 2040.
  • Two quotes attributed to In re Cortez (6 Cal.3d 78) do not appear in the opinion.
Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N. Sycamore Owner (LA), LLC

Motion to Remand C.D. Cal. — 2:26-cv-00272Decided
2 Holdings Cited in Reverse 4 Statutes — Fabricated Quotes 2 Potentially Stretched
  • NewGen v. Safe Cig cited to demand mandatory remand, but the case held the opposite — that defective jurisdictional allegations are not fatal and courts should allow amendment.
  • Ehrman v. Cox Communications cited to attack "information and belief" pleading. The case actually held such pleading is permissible and reversed a remand on those exact grounds.
  • Four core federal jurisdiction statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, 1447) are paired with characterizations and quotes that do not match the statutory text.
  • Kanter v. Warner-Lambert applied a corporate-citizenship test to an LLC dispute — a doctrinal mismatch that overextends its precedential reach.
Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

EFD USA, Inc. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc.

Appellants' Corrected Opening Brief Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. — B329314Decided
3 Fabricated Quotes 3 Overextended 11 Potentially Stretched
  • Fabricated quotes are attributed to Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co. and Riverisland Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Prod. Credit Ass'n — both real California Supreme Court cases, but the quoted language does not appear in either opinion.
  • Civil Code § 3288 is cited with a quote that does not appear in the statute.
  • Eleven additional citations are potentially stretched beyond their holdings — pushing, not necessarily breaking.
Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

Rios v. Puente Hills Ford, LLC

Appellant's Opening Brief Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. — B344199Decided
7 Fabricated Cases 1 Fabricated Statute 9 Fabricated Quotes 10 Mischaracterized 15 Potentially Stretched
  • Seven cases cannot be verified to exist, including Zuckerman v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California, and Hearn v. Howard.
  • Code of Civil Procedure § 1542 — the canonical California waiver statute — is cited to a nonexistent provision accompanied by a fabricated quote.
  • Nine additional quotes are attributed to real cases (Osumi v. Sutton, Armendariz, Fiore v. Alvord) that do not appear in the opinions.
Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

County of Los Angeles v. Niblett

Appellant's Opening Brief Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. Div. 1 — B327744Decided
3 Fabricated Cases 5 Mischaracterized 8 Potentially Stretched
  • Three cited authorities — Montebello Unified School District v. State Board of Education, R.D. v. P.M., and People v. Zermeno — could not be verified to exist at the cited reporter citations.
  • Five real cases — including United States v. Rahimi and Waters v. Churchill — are cited for propositions the opinions do not support; Bookout v. Nielsen and Parisi v. Mazzaferro are similarly pulled into territory the courts did not decide.
  • Eight additional First Amendment and restraining-order authorities are potentially stretched — applied to workplace-violence-order doctrine in ways the underlying opinions don't cleanly support.

Note: Opine's tool also flagged “Stats. 2023, ch. 286, § 1” as a fabricated statute. On review, that’s a real California session-law citation — the tool treated a bill/chaptered-act reference as if it should resolve to a codified statute. The flag was excluded from the counts above.

Report Court Response View Details
0
Checked
0
Flagged
0%
Accuracy

Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.

Appellant's Opening Brief & Reply Brief Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. Div. 3 — B331918 Decided
18 Fabricated Cases 1 Fabricated Statute 18 Fabricated Quotes 13 Mischaracterized 21 Potentially Stretched
  • Opening brief: 13 cases cannot be verified to exist — including Goldstine v. Liberty Mut. Ins., Caldwell v. Unified Capital Group, Heckert v. MacDonald, Kumar v. Ramsey, and Schimmel v. Levin — plus a nonexistent Labor Code § 1298 and 13 fabricated quotes attributed to real cases. The court's own count: "21 of [23] case quotations" in the opening brief are fabrications.
  • Reply brief: 5 additional nonexistent cases (Biles v. Exxon Mobil, Ehrhart v. McKinley, Sentry Ins., Royalty Carpet Mills, Rappleyea v. Campbell) plus 5 more fabricated quotes.
  • This published opinion is itself the leading California authority on AI-generated citations — cited by the Hall, EFD, Rios, and Gamez courts elsewhere in Cite Jail.
Opening Report Reply Report Court Response View Details

Don't end up in Cite Jail.

Try Opine