Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Mitchell Taylor Button et al. on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)

Court
W.D. Washington
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2025-10-17
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Order include signed certification
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a supposed Ninth Circuit case for the phrase 'to weed out meritless suits at an early stage' but the Court could not locate the cited case or the quote in any Ninth Circuit opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Washington Court of Appeals case purportedly stating defamatory statements about private individuals 'do not become matters of public concern merely because they touch on litigation,' but the Court could not find the case or the quoted language in any Washington opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a Washington Court of Appeals case as saying UPEPA protects speech 'on issues of legitimate public debate,' but that quote does not appear in the cited opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a Tenth Circuit opinion for the proposition '[a] litigant may not manipulate procedure to gain tactical advantage,' but the Court was unable to locate the cited Tenth Circuit opinion or the quoted language. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Southern District of California case/order for the proposition that blanket denials do not comply with Rule 8; while a case by that name exists, the Court could not locate the specific order Plaintiffs cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case from this district for the proposition the Court can strike an unintelligible answer, but the Court could not locate the cited case; the case number referenced an unassigned, administratively terminated matter.

Sanction teardown · W.D. Washington, USA · 2025-10-17

Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)

What happened

In W.D. Washington, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Plaintiffs quoted a supposed Ninth Circuit case for the phrase 'to weed out meritless suits at an early stage' but the Court could not locate the cited case or the quote in any Ninth Circuit opinion.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Plaintiffs cited a Washington Court of Appeals case purportedly stating defamatory statements about private individuals 'do not become matters of public concern merely because they touch on litigation,' but the Court could not find the case or the quoted language in any Washington opinion.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Plaintiffs quoted a Washington Court of Appeals case as saying UPEPA protects speech 'on issues of legitimate public debate,' but that quote does not appear in the cited opinion.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Plaintiffs quoted a Tenth Circuit opinion for the proposition '[a] litigant may not manipulate procedure to gain tactical advantage,' but the Court was unable to locate the cited Tenth Circuit opinion or the quoted language.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Plaintiffs cited a Southern District of California case/order for the proposition that blanket denials do not comply with Rule 8; while a case by that name exists, the Court could not locate the specific order Plaintiffs cited.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Plaintiffs cited a case from this district for the proposition the Court can strike an unintelligible answer, but the Court could not locate the cited case; the case number referenced an unassigned, administratively terminated matter.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Order include signed certification

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/891/Button_v._Jimison_USA_17_October_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/891/Button_v._Jimison_USA_17_October_2025.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template