Davis v. Gopal, Didyuk, and Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals
Shelby County Circuit Court, Tenn. · Aug 14, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Legal Norm | The memoranda requested costs under a nonexistent Tennessee statute. The motion states that Tennessee Code chapter 20-5 ends at section 20-5-118 and contains no section 20-5-119(c). Outcome: Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.. Plaintiff's motion alleges that defense counsel filed motions to dismiss containing nonexistent Tennessee statutes, nonexistent statutory subdivisions, fabricated quotations, invented legal standards, incorrect reporter citations, and facts attributed to the wrong cases. The motion identifies alleged AI-generated or copied errors involving Martin, Stevens, J.A.C., Roberts, Lawson, Foster, Bray, and other authorities. The requested relief was an order requiring the identified attorneys and firms to explain their conduct under oath and attend a hearing under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.03(1)(b); the motion expressly reserved any sanctions decision.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed. in Shelby County Circuit Court, Tenn.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Legal Norm | The memoranda requested costs under a nonexistent Tennessee statute. The motion states that Tennessee Code chapter 20-5 ends at section 20-5-118 and contains no section 20-5-119(c). Outcome: Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.. Plaintiff's motion alleges that defense counsel filed motions to dismiss containing nonexistent Tennessee statutes, nonexistent statutory subdivisions, fabricated quotations, invented legal standards, incorrect reporter citations, and facts attributed to the wrong cases. The motion identifies alleged AI-generated or copied errors involving Martin, Stevens, J.A.C., Roberts, Lawson, Foster, Bray, and other authorities. The requested relief was an order requiring the identified attorneys and firms to explain their conduct under oath and attend a hearing under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.03(1)(b); the motion expressly reserved any sanctions decision.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed. in Shelby County Circuit Court, Tenn.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
14 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | The memoranda requested costs under a nonexistent Tennessee statute. The motion states that Tennessee Code chapter 20-5 ends at section 20-5-118 and contains no section 20-5-119(c).
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | The Methodist motion relied on a nonexistent subdivision of the health-care-liability pre-suit notice statute.
- False Quotes: Case Law | The Didyuk memorandum attributed a 46-word quotation to Martin, purportedly quoting Stevens, but the motion states that neither opinion contains the passage.
- False Quotes: Case Law | The Didyuk memorandum quoted language attributed to Stevens that does not appear in Stevens; the motion identifies it as a rewritten version of Martin's actual language.
- False Quotes: Case Law | The Methodist memorandum presented a composite quotation as if it were a single passage from Stevens. The motion states that Stevens instead contains separate sentences concerning less-than-perfect compliance, prejudice, and substantial compliance.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The Methodist memorandum asserted a presumption of prejudice and cited Martin page 335. The motion states that Martin adopted no such presumption and held that prejudice is not a separate analytical element.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Didyuk memorandum cited “Id. at 559” for Martin, but the motion states that Martin runs only from pages 322 through 347 and has no page 559.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The Didyuk memorandum attributed to J.A.C. facts that allegedly belong to Roberts v. Prill, involving a plaintiff who intentionally left portions of a HIPAA authorization blank.
Show 6 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Methodist memorandum cited Foster with the reporter citation belonging to Bray, according to the motion.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The Methodist memorandum allegedly misidentified the estate name and docket number in a citation to a real case.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Both memoranda allegedly deleted the operative words “to enable defendants” from a quotation of Stevens without indicating the omission with ellipses.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Both memoranda allegedly changed J.A.C.’s quotation from “owed no duty” to “owe no duty.”
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The Methodist memorandum allegedly omitted the portion of Christie stating that the hospital could not be prejudiced because no other records existed, thereby presenting only the portion favorable to defendants.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The Methodist memorandum allegedly placed the 120-day limitations extension in subsection (b), although the motion states that the extension appears in subsection (c).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Davis v. Gopal, Didyuk, and Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals?
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | The memoranda requested costs under a nonexistent Tennessee statute. The motion states that Tennessee Code chapter 20-5 ends at section 20-5-118 and contains no section 20-5-119(c). Outcome: Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.. Plaintiff's motion alleges that defense counsel filed motions to dismiss containing nonexistent Tennessee statutes, nonexistent statutory subdivisions, fabricated quotations, invented legal standards, incorrect reporter citations, and facts attributed to the wrong cases. The motion identifies alleged AI-generated or copied errors involving Martin, Stevens, J.A.C., Roberts, Lawson, Foster, Bray, and other authorities. The requested relief was an order requiring the identified attorneys and firms to explain their conduct under oath and attend a hearing under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11.03(1)(b); the motion expressly reserved any sanctions decision.
- Why does Davis v. Gopal, Didyuk, and Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed. in Shelby County Circuit Court, Tenn.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Davis v. Gopal, Didyuk, and Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Davis v. Gopal, Didyuk, and Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.