Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Moses v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · State appellate courts · TN · · 2026 WL 518478 · No. No. W2025-00386-COA-R3-CV · opinion
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee on 2026-02-25 in Moses v. State found the self-represented party's appellate brief contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. The court dismissed claims or denied relief after identifying the defective authorities.
- Disposition
- The court dismissed claims or denied relief after identifying the defective authorities.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented party's appellate brief contained one citation defect involving nonexistent authorities, incorrect statutory or rule text. — outcome: dismissal; actor: litigant in person
- 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.
defective. On January 16, 2025, Moses filed a motion seeking argues that Moses failed to properly cite the record or to additional time to file an amended complaint in the event legal authority as required by Tennessee Rule of Appellate the Claims Commission found she needed leave to do so. Procedure 27(a)(7). Moses’ brief contains several errors in Moses asked the Claims Commission to deem her amended legal citation and at least one fictitious case. In addition, complaint as having been properly filed on November 25, Moses fails to cite to the appellate record. We disregard 2024, or at least by January 16, 2025, when she filed her any legal authorities cited by Moses that we cannot verify motion to amend. Additional procedural history unfolded, and as authentic. However, in view of Moses’ pro se status, neither party requested oral argument. the straightforwardness of the issues on appeal, the relative brevity of the record, and our general preference to resolve In February 2025, the Commissioner entered his final cases on their merits, we decline to dismiss Moses’ appeal for order in which he granted the State's motion to dismiss and noncompliance with the rules of briefing.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face