Dalton Gage Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (2)
Dalton Gage Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (2) is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.
- Court
- W.D. Oklajoma
- Date
- May 21, 2026
- Party
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the order
- Outcome
- Report and Recommendation: Rule 11 sanctions (attorney fees, amount to be determined) and contempt recommended
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty in this order.
What the record shows
In a Report and Recommendation, a magistrate judge addressed counsel's repeated failure to disclose AI use and recommended Rule 11 sanctions, finding monetary sanctions appropriate given the costs of litigating the motion and counsel's failure to investigate and correct the amended complaint. The judge recommended ordering Mr. McBride to pay Defendant Winchester's reasonable attorney's fees (to be fixed on a later accounting) and recommended a contempt finding.
This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.
Source documents
The test this filing did not run
Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.
Run a free reviewBack to the full tracker →