Anthony Jama Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
CA California · Feb 25, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA California
- Record ID
- anthony-jama-hall-v-superior-court-of-sacramento-county-2026-02-25
- Observed outcome
- The judgment was affirmed, and the court issued a formal warning to the appellant regarding the use of fabricated legal authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for including at least 11 fabricated legal citations in his appellate briefs. The court attributed these errors to the litigant's failure to verify citations, potentially generated by AI, and warned that future use of such materials could lead to filings being stricken or formal sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 305' as controlling authority; the court determined this case citation does not exist and does not support appellant's proposition. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 'Government Code section 911.5, subdivision (b)' to support due process arguments; the court found this statutory citation (as cited) to be nonexistent or inaccurately relied upon by appellant. || Fabricated: Other | The court identified that at least 11 authorities in appellant's briefs were either nonexistent or wholly inaccurate and attributed the errors to fabrication or failure to review citations potentially produced by generative AI.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandate.
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 attributed the errors to generative artificial intelligence.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.