Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump
W.D. Tennessee · Mar 30, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se appellant after confirming he submitted three fabricated or misrepresentative case citations in a motion. The appellant admitted to using an AI tool to draft his filings, and the court cautioned that continued submission of such citations could lead to sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), an unrepresented party certifies that legal contentions are warranted by existing law. Citing precedent, the court noted that failing to verify the existence and soundness of cited authority warrants sanctions, regardless of intent.
- Why it matters now
- Three fabricated cites in one motion is now the norm — courts catch them on independent research.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal from the bankruptcy court, the district court denied the pro se appellant's motions for recusal, disqualification of counsel, and a stay of proceedings. During the litigation, the appellee identified that the appellant included three nonexistent or misrepresentative case citations in his motion for summary reversal. The appellant admitted to using an artificial intelligence tool to draft a substantial portion of his filings and disclosed this use to the court. The court confirmed the citations were fabricated and issued a formal warning to the appellant, noting that future submissions of nonexistent or misrepresentative citations may result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).
Three fabricated cites in one motion is now the norm — courts catch them on independent research.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The appellant admitted to using an artificial intelligence tool.
Order denying appellant's objection, appeal, and related motions for recusal, disqualification, and stay, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a second nonexistent case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a nonexistent case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a third nonexistent or misrepresentative case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation was erroneous/nonexistent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump?
- The court issued a formal warning to the pro se appellant after confirming he submitted three fabricated or misrepresentative case citations in a motion. The appellant admitted to using an AI tool to draft his filings, and the court cautioned that continued submission of such citations could lead to sanctions.
- Why does Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump matter for legal AI risk?
- Three fabricated cites in one motion is now the norm — courts catch them on independent research.
- What does the public record establish about Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump?
- 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 Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump 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.