Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Shahid v. Esaam
CA Georgia · Jun 30, 2025
GA / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamilyappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Epps'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order. Outcome: Case remanded; monetary penalty. " After the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce, Nimat Shahid (“Wife”) filed a petition to reopen the case and set aside the final judgment, arguing that service by publication was improper. The trial court denied the motion, using an order that relied upon non-existent case law.""We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court's order.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Case remanded; monetary penalty; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Never submit a draft order written by counsel without verifying every case cited — the judge's credibility rides on yours.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Epps'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order. Outcome: Case remanded; monetary penalty. " After the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce, Nimat Shahid (“Wife”) filed a petition to reopen the case and set aside the final judgment, arguing that service by publication was improper. The trial court denied the motion, using an order that relied upon non-existent case law.""We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court's order. As the reviewing court, we make no findings of fact as to how this impropriety occurred, observing only that the order purports to have been prepared by Husband's attorney, Diana Lynch. We further note that Lynch had cited the two fictitious cases that made it into the trial court's order in Husband's response to the petition to reopen, and she cited additional fake cases both in that Response and in the Appellee's Brief filed in this Court. "
Operational lesson
Never submit a draft order written by counsel without verifying every case cited — the judge's credibility rides on yours.
Record details
GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Georgia
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit11th Circuit
DateJun 30, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer; Judge
OutcomeCase remanded; monetary penalty
Known amount$2,500
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Case remanded; monetary penalty
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
19 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Epps'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Hodge'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent case; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent 'Miller v. Miller' with a mismatched parallel cite; court found the reporter cite corresponds to an unrelated criminal case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent divorce case; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent case styled against the State; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent Ramos decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent McRae decision; court listed it as fictitious.
Show 11 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent Johnson decision to support attorney fees on appeal; court could not find it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent case; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Christie decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Mobley decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Blasingame as supporting service by publication; court said the case had nothing to do with service by publication.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Wilson as governing deference to trial court factual findings; court noted Wilson says nothing about that standard of review.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Brown v. Tomlinson as establishing deference in absence of a transcript; court said the case says nothing about that.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellee's Brief misrepresented Jones v. State as requiring affirmance without a transcript; court noted the case had a transcript and said nothing related to that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellee's Brief asserted OCGA § 9-15-14 authorizes attorney's fees on appeal; court explained longstanding law holds appellate fees are not recoverable under this statute.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Robinson decision; court listed it as fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband's Response cited a non-existent Reynolds decision (distinct from the real 2015 Supreme Court case); court listed it as fictitious.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Shahid v. Esaam?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Epps'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order. Outcome: Case remanded; monetary penalty. " After the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce, Nimat Shahid (“Wife”) filed a petition to reopen the case and set aside the final judgment, arguing that service by publication was improper. The trial court denied the motion, using an order that relied upon non-existent case law.""We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court's order.…
- Why does Shahid v. Esaam matter for legal AI risk?
- Never submit a draft order written by counsel without verifying every case cited — the judge's credibility rides on yours.
- What does the public record establish about Shahid v. Esaam?
- 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 Shahid v. Esaam 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.