Skip to content

Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Amanda Adams v. Allen Butler Construction, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals · State appellate courts · TX · · No. 07-25-00191-CV · opinion

The Texas Court of Appeals on 2026-05-05 affirmed the order awarding attorney fees and dismissing the case, rejecting arguments supported by nonexistent cases and false quotations in Amanda Adams v. Allen Butler Construction, Inc. The self-represented party filed a brief with one fabricated case citation, one false case quotation, one mischaracterized case citation, and one misstated record or submission point.

Disposition
The trial court’s judgment was affirmed and Adams was warned that AI use does not excuse false citations.
Recorded conduct
Adams’s pro se brief contained nonexistent citations, fictitious quotations, and inaccurate descriptions of authorities. The court warned that using AI does not excuse compliance failures. — outcome: warning; 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.

Ms. Adams is reminded that, as a pro se litigant, she is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Any further blatant misrepresentations of case law will not be permitted and may result in the issuance of sanctions. The use of artificial intelligence in preparation of a submission to the Court will not excuse misrepresentations of case law.

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