Estate of Khallid Muhammad v. Estate of Tupac Shakur
Key Findings
- 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.
Court Response
Disposition: OSC issued; sanctions hearing set for March 6, 2026.
The court had previously required plaintiffs to explain their citations and disclose any AI use. In their response, plaintiffs conceded that one citation they offered actually pointed to a Minnesota state-court probate appeal unrelated to intervention, and that another "does not correspond to any publicly-retrievable decision." The court found the response "vague and deficient," noting plaintiffs did not disclose whether AI was used.
Comparison: Opine had flagged three fabricated cases — Hilsley v. Ocean Spray, Amundson v. Catello, and Gonzalez v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC. Plaintiffs' own court-ordered response conceded that two of the flagged citations do not exist as cited.
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.