ApodictaShow me on my files

District of Columbia · federal district court · 2025

Jones v. District of Columbia Office of Unified Communications

District Court, District of Columbia, 22 October 2025. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · D.D.C.

  1. Court. District Court, District of ColumbiaCOURT
  2. Level. federal district courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 22 October 2025DATED
  4. Docket. No. Civil Action No. 2025-1129DOCKET
  5. Judge. Judge Rudolph ContrerasJUDGE
  6. Documents. one document, 3 passages quoted belowON FILE
  7. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.

Published opinion, 22 October 2025 · source · PDF · 15 pages

VI. USE OF NONEXISTENT QUOTATIONS As Defendant observes, Plaintiff’s counsel, Donald Quinn, cites to nonexistent quotations at several points in Plaintiff’s opposition brief. See Def.’s Reply at 3 (noting that Plaintiff’s “opposition brief persistently attributes quotations to cases that do not contain the quoted material”); see also id. at 4 & n.1.

Mr. Quinn’s citations to nonexistent quotations bear the hallmarks of reliance on an artificial intelligence tool. See Williams v.

Mar. 18, 2025) (“Courts have recently seen increasing reliance on artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, leading to the use of nonexistent citations in court documents.”). Reliance on misquoted or nonexistent authorities in court filings is not acceptable: it contravenes an attorney’s duty toward his client to exercise professional judgment and responsibility.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from District Court, District of Columbia, from District of Columbia, or from 2025. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on one of my filesTry the gate
Show me on my files