Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
Key Findings
- 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- Four statute citations are fabricated or refer to repealed sections, including a nonexistent Commercial Code § 1308 and long-repealed CCP §§ 2030 and 2040.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.
Court Response
Disposition: Affirmed.
The court "admonish[ed] appellant for fabricating legal authorities or failing to review citations created by generative artificial intelligence that tend to 'hallucinate' legal authority," and noted that "at least 11 authorities cited in appellant's briefs are either nonexistent or wholly inaccurate for the propositions asserted." The opinion specifically named County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 305 and Government Code § 911.5 as authorities that do not exist. The court warned that continued reliance on fabricated authority could result in sanctions or stricken filings.
Comparison: Opine flagged 13 citations as fabricated — 9 cases and 4 statutes — including both County of Sacramento v. Superior Court and Government Code § 911.5 by name. The court's "at least 11" falls within Opine's count.
Every citation in the filing above was checked against the actual opinion or statute it claimed to cite. Fabricated items could not be verified to exist. Mischaracterized items are real cases described incorrectly. Potentially stretched items are real citations applied in ways that push beyond the holding — judgment calls rather than definitive errors.
Opine's citation verification currently covers California state courts and the 9th Circuit — the jurisdictions where our case-law and statute data is comprehensive.