Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Tamisha Shaw on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/

Court
SC Georgia
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2026-01-06
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Monetary Sanction
Monetary penalty
2632

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Williams v. Streeval, 301 Ga. App. 455 (2009)" for the proposition that an answer filed without authority is a nullity; court found the named opinion was a non-Georgia trial court opinion and the citation actually points to In re M.O., 301 Ga. App. 453 (2009). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Fisher v. State, 272 Ga. 883 (2000)" to support authority for invalid unauthorized representation; court found no such Fisher decision exists and the citation actually leads to Mosley v. State, 272 Ga. 881 (2000), which does not support plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited and quoted "Wallace v. Wallace, 271 Ga. 130, 130-31 (1999)" claiming a quote about pleadings filed without authority; court found the quote does not appear in Georgia law and the citation directs to White v. State, 271 Ga. 130 (1999), which is unrelated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 277 Ga. 198 (2003)" as reaffirming that courts may strike unauthorized pleadings; court found no Georgia Supreme Court case by that caption and the citation points to Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 195 (2003), unrelated.

Sanction teardown · SC Georgia, USA · 2026-01-06

Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/

What happened

In SC Georgia, 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:

  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Plaintiff cited "Williams v. Streeval, 301 Ga. App. 455 (2009)" for the proposition that an answer filed without authority is a nullity; court found the named opinion was a non-Georgia trial court opinion and the citation actually points to In re M.O., 301 Ga. App. 453 (2009).
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Plaintiff cited "Fisher v. State, 272 Ga. 883 (2000)" to support authority for invalid unauthorized representation; court found no such Fisher decision exists and the citation actually leads to Mosley v. State, 272 Ga. 881 (2000), which does not support plaintiff's proposition.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Plaintiff cited and quoted "Wallace v. Wallace, 271 Ga. 130, 130-31 (1999)" claiming a quote about pleadings filed without authority; court found the quote does not appear in Georgia law and the citation directs to White v. State, 271 Ga. 130 (1999), which is unrelated.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Plaintiff cited "Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 277 Ga. 198 (2003)" as reaffirming that courts may strike unauthorized pleadings; court found no Georgia Supreme Court case by that caption and the citation points to Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 195 (2003), unrelated.

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

Monetary Sanction (monetary penalty: 2632 .)

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/1576/Shaw_v._Coast_Dental_USA_6_January_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1576/Shaw_v._Coast_Dental_USA_6_January_2026.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template