Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shona L. Williams v. Samuel R. Lee, II
Illinois Appellate Court, Third District · Aug 31, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the sole authority cited in the brief, In re Marriage of Whittaker, did not exist and appeared to be fabricated or hallucinated through generative AI. The court noted that this violated the supreme court’s AI policy and could support sanctions, but it declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief. Outcome: The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal.. Samuel Lee’s brief relied exclusively on In re Marriage of Whittaker, 2021 IL App (5th) 200162-U, to argue that vacation and holiday overnights should be included in calculating child support. The appellate court determined that Whittaker was nonexistent and stated that it appeared to have been fabricated or generated through improper use of generative AI. Although the conduct was potentially sanctionable under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(a) and the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI, the majority exercised its discretion to reach the merits and remanded for recalculation of overnights. The dissent would have imposed the procedural consequence of striking the brief and dismissing the appeal.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal. in Illinois Appellate Court, Third District. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the sole authority cited in the brief, In re Marriage of Whittaker, did not exist and appeared to be fabricated or hallucinated through generative AI. The court noted that this violated the supreme court’s AI policy and could support sanctions, but it declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief. Outcome: The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal.. Samuel Lee’s brief relied exclusively on In re Marriage of Whittaker, 2021 IL App (5th) 200162-U, to argue that vacation and holiday overnights should be included in calculating child support. The appellate court determined that Whittaker was nonexistent and stated that it appeared to have been fabricated or generated through improper use of generative AI. Although the conduct was potentially sanctionable under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(a) and the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI, the majority exercised its discretion to reach the merits and remanded for recalculation of overnights. The dissent would have imposed the procedural consequence of striking the brief and dismissing the appeal.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal. in Illinois Appellate Court, Third District. 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.
The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the sole authority cited in the brief, In re Marriage of Whittaker, did not exist and appeared to be fabricated or hallucinated through generative AI. The court noted that this violated the supreme court’s AI policy and could support sanctions, but it declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shona L. Williams v. Samuel R. Lee, II?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that the sole authority cited in the brief, In re Marriage of Whittaker, did not exist and appeared to be fabricated or hallucinated through generative AI. The court noted that this violated the supreme court’s AI policy and could support sanctions, but it declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief. Outcome: The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal.. Samuel Lee’s brief relied exclusively on In re Marriage of Whittaker, 2021 IL App (5th) 200162-U, to argue that vacation and holiday overnights should be included in calculating child support. The appellate court determined that Whittaker was nonexistent and stated that it appeared to have been fabricated or generated through improper use of generative AI. Although the conduct was potentially sanctionable under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375(a) and the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI, the majority exercised its discretion to reach the merits and remanded for recalculation of overnights. The dissent would have imposed the procedural consequence of striking the brief and dismissing the appeal.
- Why does Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shona L. Williams v. Samuel R. Lee, II matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court identified the cited case as nonexistent but declined to dismiss the appeal or strike the brief; it reached the merits. The dissent would have stricken the brief and dismissed the appeal. in Illinois Appellate Court, Third District. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shona L. Williams v. Samuel R. Lee, II?
- 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 Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Shona L. Williams v. Samuel R. Lee, II 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.