Was Rushing v. Turner (C-742,404) sanctioned over AI-generated citations?

Rushing v. Turner (C-742,404) (19th JD, Louisiana, March 27, 2026) is a documented matter involving citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The recorded outcome was: Attorney letter accepting responsibility (no sanction stated). No monetary penalty in this order.

Which AI tool was involved in Rushing v. Turner (C-742,404)?

The matter records EVE as the generative tool associated with the unverified citations in Rushing v. Turner (C-742,404).

March 27, 2026 · AI sanctions database

Rushing v. Turner (C-742,404)

Rushing v. Turner (C-742,404) 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: 19th JD, Louisiana
Date: March 27, 2026
Party: Lawyer
AI tool: EVE
Outcome: Attorney letter accepting responsibility (no sanction stated)
Penalty: No monetary penalty in this order.

What the record shows

In a letter to the court, counsel took responsibility for filing two motions to compel containing inaccurate quotations attributed to Riggio v. Ports Am. La., L.L.C. Counsel stated he had begun using an AI program called EVE to draft pleadings and characterized the error as an ordinary human mistake. The provided document is counsel's letter and contains no court ruling imposing a sanction.

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

Primary court document ↗

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 review Back to the full tracker →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · 19th JD, Louisiana

About this publication

Veritas is a pre-filing citation verification platform for law firms and in-house counsel. Every post on the audit log is written by the Veritas editorial team and cross-checked against the underlying sanctions order, standing order, or published opinion it references. Reporter citations are read in their named volumes. Quotations from court orders are checked against the docket.

The product was built by Andrew Zoll, founder of Veritas, who tracks generative AI sanctions in federal and state courts and turns each documented failure mode into verification logic the scanner runs. Veritas was built after the canonical Mata v. Avianca sanctions order made the verification gap a published failure mode of the bar.

AI sanctions database · Sample report · Pricing · Run a scan