Skip to content

Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Henry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al.

Court of Appeals of Georgia · State appellate courts · GA · · No. A26A0698; A26A0699; A26A0700 · order

Fabricated or misquoted citationsGAI

On 2026-06-10, in Henry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al, Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated the order denying dismissal of the Title VII claims and remanded for reconsideration using proper standards and real case law. The trial court's order relied on at least one nonexistent or hallucinated authority and authorities used for propositions they did not support.

Disposition
The court vacated the order denying dismissal of the Title VII claims and remanded for reconsideration using proper standards and real case law.
Recorded conduct
The trial court's order relied on at least one nonexistent or hallucinated authority and authorities used for propositions they did not support. — outcome: other; actor: judge
Canonical record
Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

In addition to citing federal law applicable to motions to dismiss and confusing constitutional claims with employment discrimination, it also ignores binding Georgia precedent, mis-quotes cases cited, and relies on at least one hallucinatedcase.Wefindittroublingthatcounselsubmittedsuchanordertothetrial court, and regrettable that the trial court failed to identify any of these errors. See Paynev.State,CaseNo.S26A0459,slipop.at1-5(1)-(4),2026WL1215905(Ga.May 5, 2026) (sanctioning counsel who prepared order citing hallucinated cases, remanding to the trial court to issue a new order omitting such citations, and encouragingtrialcourtstoengageinacarefulreviewofmaterialssubmittedtoit);Slay v. Ross, __ Ga. App. __ (927 SE2d 569, 571) (2026) (“[h]allucinated cases are typicallyahallmarkoftheirresponsibleuseofregenerativeartificialintelligence(A.I.) in legal drafting.” (punctuation omitted)). Accordingly, we must, yet again, remind counsel,andlowercourts,oftheirprofessionalresponsibilitiesandobligationsinthe use of artificial intelligence. Moreover, the trial court’s order contains no analysis of the Eleventh Amendmentimmunityissuenorfactualfindingsastoanyofthefactorsapplicableto the question of whether the school district was an “arm of the State.” The trial court’s summary conclusion, coupled with the errors identified above, hampers our abilitytoreachthemeritsoftheEleventhAmendmentarguments.Asaresult,wefind itnecessarytovacatetheorderdenyingthemotiontodismisstheTitleVIIclaims,and weremandthecaseforreconsiderationundertheproperstandardsandbonafidecase law. See Payne, Case No. S26A0459, slip op. at 1-5(1)-(4) (remanding case for reconsideration without hallucinated cases). (b)Isthereawaiverofthedistrict’ssovereignimmunityforstatelawclaimsbrought in state court? We next consider whether the plaintiffs established a waiver of sovereign immunityforthestatelawtortandbreachofcontractclaims,concludingthattheydid not. TheHenryCountySchool Districtisapoliticalsubdivision of theStateand is entitledtosovereignimmunityunlessithasbeenwaived.Ga.Const.of1983,Art.IX, Sec. II, Par.

Authorities cited in the passage: Slay v. Ross, __ Ga

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub