A quarter of the citations in filed briefs are Westlaw or Lexis ids. We list them, we do not guess.Coverage ›

Replays · 6th Cir. · March 13, 2026

Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn.

Three appeals from lawsuits over an incident at a city fireworks show. The Sixth Circuit checked the appellant's briefs citation by citation and listed the problems in an appendix: quotations it could not find, cases cited for points they do not discuss, and one case it could not find at all.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision
Opinion (sanctions), March 13, 2026 (26a0080p.06), 24 pages.
Docket
Nos. 24-5918/5919; 25-5424
The filing
The appellant's opening and reply briefs in three consolidated appeals.
Sanctioned
The appellant's two lawyers.
Sanction, in the court's words
Each lawyer "must each separately and individually pay $15,000 to the registry of this court as punitive sanctions for the proceedings in this court in all three appeals." (Opinion (sanctions), p. 14) The lawyers must also pay the appellees' attorneys' fees on appeal and double costs, and the court sent the matter to its chief judge to consider discipline.
AI tool, as the decision states it
The decision names no tool.
Public record
Opinion (sanctions), March 13, 2026 (26a0080p.06); the case on CourtListener.

What the court found

"That briefing repeatedly misrepresented the record, cited non-existent cases, and cited cases for propositions of law that they did not even discuss, much less support." (Opinion (sanctions), p. 2)

"All told, we found over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of fact in Whiting's briefs, which we list in an appendix to this opinion." (Opinion (sanctions), p. 2)

"Their submission of fake cases and factual misrepresentations forced the court to individually verify every single citation to determine the appropriate sanction." (Opinion (sanctions), p. 15)

Each citation the court listed

as filedwhat the court saidwhat the register holds at this citationour default check today
1Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 29 F.4th 647, 655 (6th Cir. 2022)"The Federal Reporter citation does not correspond with a Sixth Circuit decision." (p. 18)At this citation, per the court: Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 29 F.4th 630 (10th Cir. 2022), a Tenth Circuit unfair competition case (p. 18)No case at this page. The register holds this volume.Found Found: Lucinda Jones v. Hamilton County (6th Cir. 2023)Found by name and year; this reporter citation is not attached to the case in our register. Confirm the citation.Found by name only: the register has a 2023 Sixth Circuit Jones v. Hamilton County, but not at this citation, and the row says to confirm the citation. The court says that Jones is an unpublished decision. The row is not red.
2Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 559 U.S. 260, 272 (2010)"It had nothing to do with unreasonable deadlines or ECF access." (p. 19)United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (U.S. 2010)Found Found: United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (U.S. 2010)The briefs also cite it as "Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010)". The court notes the case is captioned United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa.
3Berg v. Knox Cnty., TN, 2024 WL 2012345, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024)"We cannot find this case. The WL citation does not generate a case. We could not find the opinion in our opinions archive." (p. 19)A Westlaw number, not a page. No open register holds these.Cannot verify Westlaw/Lexis identifier. Open registers cannot resolve it
4Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) listed 3 timesQuoted in the filing: "must be limited to the hours reasonably expended on""None of those quotes (which we have not modified) appear in Fox." (p. 19)Fox v. Vice (U.S. 2011)Found Found: Fox v. Vice (U.S. 2011)The quotation is too short to check (fewer than five content words).The appendix lists three short quotations attributed to Fox; we ran the longest. It has four content words, fewer than the five the quote check needs, so the row reports the case only.
5Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987) listed 2 timesQuoted in the filing: "Court must accept as true all the factual allegations in the Complaint and construe it in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.""That quoted language does not appear in Morgan." (p. 20)Carolyn Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken (6th Cir. 1987)Check this Quoted language not in the opinion
6Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of the Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir. 2000) listed 6 timesQuoted in the filing: "[T]he mere fact that a plaintiff did not prevail does not mean that the claim was frivolous.""Adcock-Ladd does not contain the quoted language, and it is not about frivolous cases." (p. 20)Janice Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of Treasury United States Secret Service Department of Treasury (6th Cir. 2000)Check this Quoted language not in the opinion
7United States v. Alverez, 567 U.S. 709, 721 (2012)"Alvarez states the opposite: 'This opinion . . . rejects the notion that false speech should be in a general category that is presumptively unprotected.'" (p. 21)United States v. Alvarez (U.S. 2012)Found Found: United States v. Alvarez (U.S. 2012)
8Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024)"The case had nothing to do with legislative immunity." (p. 21)Lindke v. Freed (U.S. 2024)Found Found: Lindke v. Freed (U.S. 2024)
9Lindke v. Freed, 37 F.4th 1199, 1202 (6th Cir. 2022)"But again, Lindke was not about legislative immunity." (p. 21)Kevin Lindke v. James Freed (6th Cir. 2022)Found Found: Kevin Lindke v. James Freed (6th Cir. 2022)
10Kent State Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 512 F. App'x 485 (6th Cir. 2013)"In Kent State we affirmed a district court's ruling granting attorneys' fees and rejected an argument that 'the failure to provide appropriate documentation should bar a court from awarding any fees at all.'" (p. 22)Kent State University Board of Trustees v. Lexington Insurance Company (6th Cir. 2013)Found Found: Kent State University Board of Trustees v. Lexington Insurance Company (6th Cir. 2013)Register caption: Kent State University Board of Trustees v. Lexington Insurance Company (the document uses a short form).
11In re Continental Vending Machine Corp., 543 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1976)Quoted in the filing: "[O]ne purpose of the provision in 28 U.S.C. § 455 that any judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has been a material witness, is to prevent the judge from having to pass on the competence and veracity of his own testimony given with respect to the matter presently in controversy before him.""Although Continental Vending supports this proposition, this quote does not appear in the decision." (p. 22)In Re Continental Vending MacHine Corp. And Continental Apco, Inc., Debtors. James Talcott, Inc. v. Irving L. Wharton, Trustee (2d Cir. 1976)Found Found: In Re Continental Vending MacHine Corp. And Continental Apco, Inc., Debtors. James Talcott, Inc. v. Irving L. Wharton, Trustee (2d Cir. 1976); quoted language presentOur check missed this one. The opinion has nearly the same sentence ("The purpose of this provision is to prevent a judge from having to pass on the competence and veracity of his own testimony given with respect to a matter presently in controversy before him"), and the quote check accepts a reworded quotation when every content word is there. The court treats the rewording as a misquotation.

11 citations. Run September 24, 2026 with the default check, engine 0.5.0, register data of June 30, 2026: 2 Check this, 1 Cannot verify, 8 Found. Each citation was pasted as a line of text (the quoted words first, where we have them) and checked the way the checker checks a draft: no language model, nothing stored. The register column is a direct lookup of the volume and page.

What a check before filing would have shown

Before filing, the check would have put three rows in front of the lawyer: two quotations it could not find in the opinions (Adcock-Ladd, which the court's appendix lists six times, and Morgan) and the Westlaw number the court could not find. Most of the rest of the court's list is about what real cases say, which the default check does not read.

What this page does not show

  • The appendix has 27 items. Ten are not case citations (record cites, quotations of the other side's brief, a statute, court rules) and are not in the table. Repeated citations are shown once, with the number of times the appendix lists them.
  • The court calls its count "a conservative estimate" (p. 2, note 1).
  • The opinion names no AI tool.
  • Whether a case is still good law. This is not a citator.
  • Anything about the lawyers beyond what the court wrote.

Check your own draft

Paste the draft or upload the PDF. The default check reads every case citation and returns rows like the ones above in a few seconds, with no language model and nothing stored. It is free to try without an account. Then read what the court would read: every case you cite, at the page you cite.

Check a draft before you fileAll replays

Published September 24, 2026, updated September 24, 2026. We read the decision and copied the court's list; if we have misread it, write to hello@proofread.law. The rows are from the run dated above; they can change when the checker does.