Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Stanford v. Leinart

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second Appellate District, Fort Worth · State appellate courts · TX · 2026-04-02 · No. 02-25-00529-CV · memorandum opinion

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-04-02, Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, denied costs, and admonished the self-represented appellant that the fabricated Anderson v. Hood authority was unacceptable. A self-represented party submitted an appellate brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Anderson v. Hood.

Disposition: The court overruled Stanford’s seven issues, affirmed the order declaring him a vexatious litigant, and denied all pending motions.
Recorded conduct: Stanford’s appellate brief cited fabricated case Anderson v. Hood and elsewhere grossly misrepresented the record and misquoted or misrepresented legal authorities. — outcome: noted, no consequence; 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.

his gross misrepresentations of the record and misstatements of the law are unacceptable,12 but On page eighteen of his appellate brief, Stanford cites to Anderson v. Hood, 472 S.W.3d 524, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). “Anderson v. Hood” is a fabricated case and appears to be a “hallucinated” authority generated from the use of artificial intelligence. Our review of the citation leads to King v. Commonwealth, 472 S.W.3d 523 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015), and the only case with a comparable name is Anderson v. Hood Cnty., 958 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.)—a workers’ compensation case. “[C]itation of nonexistent cases that appear to have been generated by [artificial intelligence] is unacceptable.” Albelbaisi v. Mustang Materials, LLC, No. 05-24-00617-CV, 2025 WL 1384772, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 13, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). The federal magistrate’s July 23, 2024 order warned Stanford against such conduct. The order provides: The Court ADMONISHES Mr. Stanford for filing a false and misleading document with this Court. Attempting to deceive the Court is an abuse of the judicial process and the very opposite of the good faith participation on which the justice

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: ; court site blocks automated access (checked search.txcourts.gov) Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: court site blocks automated access (checked search.txcourts.gov) (checked search.txcourts.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