Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Harris v. Lyotard
·Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas·US-STATENoted, no consequenceprovisional
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.
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
- Date
- 2026-06-12
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- The pro se appellant’s initial brief contained at least four hallucinated citations and at least twenty citations that did not support the cited proposition; the reply had at least two hallucinated citations and at least ten unsupported citations. The striking of the original briefing occurred by an earlier order recounted in the opinion.
- Outcome
- Noted, no consequence
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-07
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Tapscott v. Fariss, No. 25-1666 (Iowa Ct. App. 2026)2026-10-07 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · DismissalIn the Court of Appeals of Iowa, a self-represented appellant's final brief in a protective-order appeal contained multiple hallucinated case citations. After two earlier briefs were struck and the appellant failed to a…
- Washington v. Justice, No. 2D2025-2678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · DismissalIn Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, self-represented appellants filed a brief citing eleven cases the court could not find and likely generated by AI. After an unavailing show-cause response and a pattern of f…
- Shannon v. Shannon, 322 Neb. 451 (2026), No. S-25-5462026-10-02 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Filing struckIn Nebraska, the state Supreme Court struck a self-represented divorce litigant's appellate brief for fictitious citations produced by his admitted AI use. Extending Prososki v. Regan to unrepresented parties, it held s…
- R. M. v. Mohr, 353 Or App 182 (2026), A1880922026-09-23 · Oregon Court of Appeals · FineIn Oregon, the Court of Appeals ordered a self-represented restraining-order appellant to pay $250 after his brief cited three fabricated cases he admitted came from AI. The court had threatened $1,500, at $500 per fake…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Harris v. Lyotard”, safelegalai.com/tracker/shaddai-harris-v-nadia-lyotard-and-mitchell-sadler (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.