Start with the question you need to resolve
This guide helps you distinguish three questions: does the authority exist, does it say what is quoted, and does the passage support the submission? For the checking method, see Verify a work product. For jurisdiction-specific requirements, see What courts expect when you use AI.
The idea
Check the support for a submission, whether or not AI helped write it. A plausible case name may be false. A real case may not say what the filing claims. Smooth or generic prose alone does not prove that AI was used.
What to check
If an authority cannot be found, ask for a copy from a trusted source. Give the party a fair chance to explain. Check the citation, quote, and point said to follow from the case. Do not assume a failed search proves the case was invented.
For the court's own use of AI, read the current judicial policy. Protect private and deliberative material. Keep the decision and its reasons under judicial control. Court rules and policies differ.
A worked distinction
A fictional submission says, “The court must grant an extension,” and links to a real decision. The cited passage says the court may grant an extension if specified conditions are met. Finding the decision resolves authenticity; it does not establish the asserted mandatory rule. The quotation, conditions, and context still need checking. A different citation that cannot be located presents an unresolved source question, not immediate proof of fabrication.