Shaddai Harris v. Iliac, LLC
CA Texas · Jul 16, 2026 · Brian Walker
What happened in this matter?
The court identified that the pro se litigant included an inaccurate legal citation in her appellate brief. While the court noted this error, the case was decided on procedural grounds regarding the denial of continuances and the failure to preserve issues, rather than as a formal sanction for the citation error itself.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the cited case, Valdez v. Robertson, was an inaccurate citation that did not support the appellant's proposition, as the cited cause number actually corresponded to an unrelated mandamus proceeding.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates how appellate courts identify and flag inaccurate citations in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts independently verify the validity of cited authority, regardless of whether the error is attributed to AI or manual research.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal of a no-evidence summary judgment, the Texas Court of Appeals addressed arguments raised by pro se appellant Shaddai Harris. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Harris failed to preserve certain issues and did not meet procedural requirements for continuances. During its analysis of Harris's appellate brief, the court identified that she relied on an inaccurate citation—'Valdez v. Robertson, No. 01-19-00624-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5211'—to support her argument that denying a pro se litigant a continuance is an abuse of discretion. The court explicitly stated this citation was incorrect and did not support the proposition for which it was presented, noting it conflated unrelated probate and mandamus proceedings.
This case illustrates how appellate courts identify and flag inaccurate citations in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts independently verify the validity of cited authority, regardless of whether the error is attributed to AI or manual research.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court referenced hallucinated citations in the context of the litigant's broader conduct.
Appellate review of a trial court's order granting no-evidence summary judgment.
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The opinion identifies an inaccurate citation Harris relied on—'Valdez v. Robertson, No. 01-19-00624-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5211...'—and states the citation is incorrect and does not support her proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Shaddai Harris v. Iliac, LLC?
- The court identified that the pro se litigant included an inaccurate legal citation in her appellate brief. While the court noted this error, the case was decided on procedural grounds regarding the denial of continuances and the failure to preserve issues, rather than as a formal sanction for the citation error itself.
- Why does Shaddai Harris v. Iliac, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates how appellate courts identify and flag inaccurate citations in pro se filings. It serves as a reminder that courts independently verify the validity of cited authority, regardless of whether the error is attributed to AI or manual research.
- What does the public record establish about Shaddai Harris v. Iliac, LLC?
- 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 Shaddai Harris v. Iliac, LLC 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.