Developed by Design, LLC v. James M. Travis et al.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
CA Tennessee · Oct 29, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited “Walker v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820, 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000),” but the court found that no case exists with that citation; the citation corresponds to Simonton v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), which does not address open and notorious possession.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Tennessee. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited “Walker v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820, 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000),” but the court found that no case exists with that citation; the citation corresponds to Simonton v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), which does not address open and notorious possession.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Tennessee. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited “Walker v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820, 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000),” but the court found that no case exists with that citation; the citation corresponds to Simonton v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), which does not address open and notorious possession.
- False Quotes: Case Law | The brief attributed a quotation concerning the standard for open and notorious possession to Walker v. Huff, but the court found that the actual Walker v. Huff decision, No. E2005-01096-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 721308, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2006), does not contain that quotation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Developed by Design, LLC v. James M. Travis et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited “Walker v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820, 826 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000),” but the court found that no case exists with that citation; the citation corresponds to Simonton v. Huff, 60 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), which does not address open and notorious possession.
- Why does Developed by Design, LLC v. James M. Travis et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Tennessee. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Developed by Design, LLC v. James M. Travis et al.?
- 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 Developed by Design, LLC v. James M. Travis et al. 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.