Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Joann Crawford v. Buffalo Creek Properties, LLC
Texas Court of Appeals · State appellate courts · TX · · 2026 WL 1097101 · No. 03-24-00260-CV · memorandum opinion
The Texas Court of Appeals on 2026-04-23 affirmed the judgment for Buffalo Creek after finding no reversible error and noting unsupported or nonexistent authorities in the brief in Joann Crawford v. Buffalo Creek Properties, LLC. The self-represented party filed a brief with two fabricated case citations and one invented legal doctrine, including Hercenberger v. Proctor' without a reporter citation.
- Disposition
- The court affirmed the judgment for Buffalo Creek after finding no reversible error and noting unsupported or nonexistent authorities in the brief.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented party filed a brief with two fabricated case citations and one invented legal doctrine, including Hercenberger v. Proctor' without a reporter citation and Hercenberger v. Proctor. — outcome: other; 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.
She does not specify in her brief what amendment she refused to accept. She cites cases that she purports support the proposition that any amendments to the Contract had to be in writing. However, Crawford's cited cases are either “hallucinated” cases or do not support the proposition that the mere proposal of an amendment nullified the Contract. 5 Regardless of what amendment Crawford disputes, Buffalo Creek sought specific performance of the original Contract, and the court awarded that relief. There is no showing that the court ordered specific performance of any amendment Buffalo Creek proposed. The Contract called for any liens or binding agreements to be “satisfied out of the sales price. ” The court “reformed” the Contract to adjust Buffalo Creek's payment due for the expenses of effectuating the Contract such as courts costs, attorney's fees, property-tax payments, and payment to the life-estate holder.
Authorities cited in the passage: Appellant referenced 'Hercenberger v. Proctor' without a reporter citation
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face