Davis v. Gopal, Didyuk, and Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hospitals
Shelby County Circuit Court, Tenn. · Aug 14, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Shelby County Circuit Court, Tenn.
- Record ID
- davis-v-gopal-didyuk-and-methodist-healthcare-memphis-hospitals-2026-08-14
- Observed outcome
- Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Appellate
- Ordered To Show Cause
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Plaintiff moved for a Rule 11.03(1)(b) order to show cause; no sanction had yet been imposed.
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
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.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.