Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Shaddai Harris v. Nadia Lyotard and Mitchell Sadler
Court of Appeals of Texas · State appellate courts · TX · · No. 05-24-01449-CV · memorandum opinion
On 2026-06-12, in Shaddai Harris v. Nadia Lyotard and Mitchell Sadler, Court of Appeals of Texas struck the appellant's original briefs, required an amended brief, and then decided the appeal on the redrawn briefing. A self-represented appellant filed a reply brief using at least four nonexistent or hallucinated authorities and authorities used for propositions they did not support.
- Disposition
- The court struck the appellant's original briefs, required an amended brief, and then decided the appeal on the redrawn briefing.
- Recorded conduct
- A self-represented appellant filed a reply brief using at least four nonexistent or hallucinated authorities and authorities used for propositions they did not support. — 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.
–4– Appellant initially filed a brief raising sixteen appellate issues.1 The brief contained at least four hallucinated citations and at least twenty citations which do not stand for the proposition or holding for which they are presented. After appellees filed their brief, appellant filed a reply brief with at least two hallucinated citations and at least ten citations which do not stand for the proposition or holding for which they are presented. Appellees,meanwhile,filedabriefchallengingappellant’sinitialbrief,noting at least one hallucination and multiple instances of appellant misrepresenting the holdings of cited cases. Appellees’ brief itself was lacking; the brief contained exactly one citation to the record, and that citation was to the entirety of the trial court record (“see generally Clerk’s Record and Reporter’s Record”). Notably, appellees’ brief made no effort to refute appellant’s arguments about the portion of the judgment awarding appellee Lyotard damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.