Paris v. Paris
CA Texas · Jun 25, 2026 · Wade Birdwell
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Texas
- Record ID
- paris-v-paris-2026-06-25
- Observed outcome
- The appellate court overruled all of the appellant's issues and affirmed the trial court's divorce decree.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified a citation provided by the pro se appellant as likely AI-hallucinated because it could not be located on Westlaw. The court did not rely on the fabricated case law and did not impose sanctions, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment.
The court reasoned that the citation was likely AI-hallucinated because it could not be located on Westlaw, and therefore declined to rely on the authority provided by the appellant.
This case illustrates the risk of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal research, resulting in the submission of fabricated citations that appellate courts must identify and disregard during their review process.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a divorce decree following a bench trial in the 442nd District Court of Denton County, Texas.
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 characterized the citation as AI-hallucinated.
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.