Jacobs v. Timberlake
CA Louisiana (5d) · May 12, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Louisiana (5d)
- Record ID
- jacobs-v-timberlake-2026-05-12
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the writ application as moot and issued a rule to show cause requiring counsel to explain the invalid citation and disclose any use of generative AI.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court ordered counsel to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for citing non-existent legal authority. Counsel must produce the cited case or explain its origin and disclose whether generative AI was used in the drafting process, including the verification protocols applied to the legal research.
The court determined that the citation could not be verified by the parties or the court, and that the subsequent removal of the citation without explanation necessitated a formal inquiry into counsel's research practices and potential use of generative AI.
This matter connects fake citations and family involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in CA Louisiana (5d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Appellate
- Ordered To Show Cause
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued a rule to show cause on its own motion following a writ application in which the relator cited an unverified case.
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 ordered disclosure of any generative AI tool used.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.