AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMoses v. State
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Moses v. State

CA Tennessee · Feb 25, 2026

TN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstortappellateNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court observed that the appellant's brief contained fictitious case citations and citation errors. The court stated it would disregard any legal authorities it could not verify as authentic, though the appeal was ultimately decided on independent procedural grounds regarding the failure to file a compliant certificate of good faith.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained at least one fictitious case citation; the court stated it would disregard any authorities it could not verify as authentic.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Tennessee, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In this health care liability appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed briefing deficiencies by the pro se appellant, Pamela Moses. The State argued that Moses failed to properly cite the record or legal authority. The court noted that Moses' brief contained citation errors and at least one fictitious case. The court stated it would disregard any legal authorities it could not verify as authentic. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Claims Commission's dismissal of the action on independent grounds, specifically Moses' failure to file a compliant certificate of good faith as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122, and her failure to challenge the Commissioner's alternative finding that her amended certificate was defective.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Tennessee, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

TennesseeSingle-state evidence scope
Explore TNOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Tennessee
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit6th Circuit
DateFeb 25, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Court of Appeals affirmed the Claims Commission's dismissal of the appellant's case.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, resulting in an affirmance of the dismissal of the appellant's health care liability claim.

Correction behavior

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained at least one fictitious case citation; the court stated it would disregard any authorities it could not verify as authentic.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Moses v. State?
The court observed that the appellant's brief contained fictitious case citations and citation errors. The court stated it would disregard any legal authorities it could not verify as authentic, though the appeal was ultimately decided on independent procedural grounds regarding the failure to file a compliant certificate of good faith.
Why does Moses v. State matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Tennessee, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Moses v. State?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Moses v. State 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.

Simmons v. Shahidul IslamCA Tennessee · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHarding Place Multifamily Partners v. Samuel RobinsonCA Tennessee · Jul 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMerritt v. MooreCA Tennessee · Jul 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKenneth Merritt v. American Home ShieldCA Tennessee · Feb 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRose Lannquist Gouldy v. Timothy M. Chiasson, et al.CA Florida (4d) · Jul 22, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Corrales v BPG InspectionCA Colorado · Jul 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)