AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesRodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
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

Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

N.D. Texas · Jun 23, 2026

TX / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstorttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the plaintiff's counsel admitted to using generative AI to draft a response that included a fabricated case citation. The court identified the error during proceedings, and counsel filed a notice of errata. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the merits of the underlying negligence claim.

Why the court cared
The court noted that it was unable to locate the cited case and that counsel admitted at the hearing that the case did not exist and was generated by AI without verification.
Why it matters now
This case serves as a reminder of the necessity for rigorous verification of all AI-generated legal research. It demonstrates how fabricated citations can undermine a party's credibility and legal arguments in federal court.

Why this matter is tracked

In a negligence action, the plaintiff cited a non-existent case, 'Cargill Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 825 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2016),' to support a legal argument regarding the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act. During a hearing, counsel admitted that the citation was generated by generative AI and was not verified. The court noted this admission in its Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment for the defendant. While the court granted summary judgment on the merits of the negligence claim, the incident highlights the risks associated with unverified AI-generated legal research in federal filings. The court's order reflects the procedural handling of the case and the counsel's subsequent notice of errata regarding the fabricated authority.

Operational lesson

This case serves as a reminder of the necessity for rigorous verification of all AI-generated legal research. It demonstrates how fabricated citations can undermine a party's credibility and legal arguments in federal court.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope
Explore TXOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. Texas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateJun 23, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's duty or liability.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Counsel admitted to using generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on June 23, 2026, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order.

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 | Plaintiff cited 'Cargill Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 825 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2016)'; the court found the case does not exist and counsel admitted the citation was generated by generative AI and unverified (see Notice of Errata, ECF No. 45).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.?
In Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the plaintiff's counsel admitted to using generative AI to draft a response that included a fabricated case citation. The court identified the error during proceedings, and counsel filed a notice of errata. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the merits of the underlying negligence claim.
Why does Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
This case serves as a reminder of the necessity for rigorous verification of all AI-generated legal research. It demonstrates how fabricated citations can undermine a party's credibility and legal arguments in federal court.
What does the public record establish about Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.?
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 Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 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.

Hartmann v. DavidsonN.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2026same court · fake citations + trialAllen v. AmazonN.D. Texas · Dec 23, 2025same court · fake citations + trialShelton v. Parkland HealthN.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2025same court · fake citations + trialTranscontinental Realty Investors, Inc., et al. v. Daniel J. MoosN.D. Texas · Jul 28, 2026same court · fake citations + trialPamon v. United States Postal Service et alN.D. Texas · Jul 22, 2026same court · fake citations + trialShawn Olali v. Ampex Brands, LLCN.D. Texas · Feb 23, 2026same court · fake citations + trial