Skip to content

Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Stanford v. Leinart

Texas Court of Appeals · State appellate courts · TX · · 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 affirmed the judgment, denied costs, and admonished the self-represented appellant that the fabricated Anderson v. Hood authority was unacceptable.
Recorded conduct
The appellate brief used fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including Anderson v. Hood, which the court found nonexistent, misquoted, or unsupported. — 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.

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

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub