Sanction teardown · CA Texas, USA · 2026-05-28
Christian Lavell Jennings v. Vandergriff Honda
What happened
In CA Texas, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:
-
Fabricated (Case Law)Appellant cited a nonexistent case 'In re Katherine S., 118 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. 2003)'; the court determined the case does not exist.
-
False Quotes (Case Law)Appellant attributed a quotation to Lane Bank that does not appear in that opinion; the court noted the quoted language is not found in Lane Bank and the case stands for a narrower proposition.
-
Misrepresented (Case Law)Appellant cited PNS Stores v. Rivera for a broad due-process proposition; the court explained the cited opinion concerned summary-judgment/jurisdictional issues and does not support the appellant's proposition.
-
Misrepresented (Case Law)Appellant cited In re D.W. for the proposition that courts commit reversible error when ignoring objections to procedural misconduct; the court observed the cited opinion addressed family-code and termination issues and does not support that broad proposition.
Which AI tool
an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.
Outcome
Not specified in source record.
How Citation Safe would have caught this
Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.
Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate
Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2277/Christian_Lavell_Jennings_v._Vandergriff_Honda_USA_28_May_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).