Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Henry County Schools v. Grant

Court of Appeals of Georgia · State appellate courts · GA · 2026-06-10 · No. A26A0698; A26A0699; A26A0700 · opinion

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 reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with direction, including vacating an order drafted by counsel that relied on hallucinated authority.
Recorded conduct: Plaintiffs’ attorney drafted a proposed order that the trial court entered; it misquoted cases, ignored binding precedent, and relied on at least one hallucinated case. The appellate court vacated the affected order and remanded. — outcome: other; actor: lawyer
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

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Read from the copy held by Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0) of the court-authored document; court site blocks automated access (checked efast.gaappeals.gov) Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: court site blocks automated access (checked efast.gaappeals.gov) (checked efast.gaappeals.gov). Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub