Amanda Adams v. Allen Butler Construction, Inc.
CA Texas · May 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Texas
- Record ID
- amanda-adams-v-allen-butler-construction-inc-2026-05-05
- Observed outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order awarding attorney's fees and dismissing the case.
- Known monetary consequence
- $14,271
Why this matter warrants attention
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the appellant waived her appellate issues due to inadequate briefing. The court specifically identified that the appellant's brief relied on non-existent case law, fictitious quotations, and mischaracterized records, failing to meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The court reasoned that the appellant's failure to provide appropriate, relevant legal authority—due to the inclusion of fabricated cases and fictitious quotes—meant that her appellate issues presented nothing for the court's review, resulting in waiver of those issues.
This case illustrates the appellate consequences of submitting AI-generated content that includes fabricated authorities. It reinforces that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and that courts will not perform independent research to salvage inadequately briefed arguments.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Appellate
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- Artificial Intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $14,271
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the 237th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas, to the Seventh District Court of Appeals of Texas at Amarillo.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court referenced the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of the submission.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.