HomeCasesShields v. First Financial

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.

Corpus matter record

Shields v. First Financial

Q: Why does Shields v. First Financial matter for legal AI risk?

Cross-check every reporter and docket number against primary databases before signing the brief; parallel-citation swaps are the tell.

Q: What does the public record establish about Shields v. First Financial?

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Q: Which source supports this Shields v. First Financial 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.

Tennessee · Nov 21, 2025

TN / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsothertrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Doe v. Roe, No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) in Plaintiffs Motion for Limited Discovery Pg. 5. There is no Doe v. Roe case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2019 and No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV returns Jones v. Jones, No. M201801746COAR3CV, 2019 WL 1036077 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019). Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Doe v. Roe, No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) in Plaintiffs Motion for Limited Discovery Pg. 5. There is no Doe v. Roe case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2019 and No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV returns Jones v. Jones, No. M201801746COAR3CV, 2019 WL 1036077 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019). || Fabricated: Case Law | Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV, 2022 WLE 1512346, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2022) in Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Pg. 2. There is a Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, 639 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021), but neither 2022 WL 1512346 nor No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV return any case in Tennessee. || Fabricated: Legal Norm || Fabricated: Case Law | Doe v. Roe, 477 S.W.3d 321, 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) in /<7 Pg. 4. There is no Doe v. Roe in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2015 and the reporter number corresponds to Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). || Fabricated: Case Law | Schultz v. Davis, 495 S.W.3d 821, 827 (Tenn. 2016) in Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Pg. 4. There is no Schultz v. Davis case in 2016 and the reporter number corresponds to State v. Dixon, 495 S.W.3d 812 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). || Fabricated: Case Law | Vincent v. Yelverton, 194 F. App'x 303, 307 (6th Cir. 2006) in Id Pg. 4. There is no Vincent v. Yelverton in the 6th Circuit in 2006 and the reporter number corresponds to United States v. Younes, 194 F. App'x 302 (6th Cir. 2006)
Why it matters now: Cross-check every reporter and docket number against primary databases before signing the brief; parallel-citation swaps are the tell.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Cross-check every reporter and docket number against primary databases before signing the brief; parallel-citation swaps are the tell.

Record details

TennesseeSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtTennessee

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit6th Circuit

DateNov 21, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Doe v. Roe, No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) in Plaintiffs Motion for Limited Discovery Pg. 5. There is no Doe v. Roe case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2019 and No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV returns Jones v. Jones, No. M201801746COAR3CV, 2019 WL 1036077 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019).
Fabricated: Case Law | Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV, 2022 WLE 1512346, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2022) in Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Pg. 2. There is a Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, 639 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021), but neither 2022 WL 1512346 nor No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV return any case in Tennessee.
Fabricated: Legal Norm
Fabricated: Case Law | Doe v. Roe, 477 S.W.3d 321, 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) in /<7 Pg. 4. There is no Doe v. Roe in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2015 and the reporter number corresponds to Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
Fabricated: Case Law | Schultz v. Davis, 495 S.W.3d 821, 827 (Tenn. 2016) in Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Pg. 4. There is no Schultz v. Davis case in 2016 and the reporter number corresponds to State v. Dixon, 495 S.W.3d 812 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
Fabricated: Case Law | Vincent v. Yelverton, 194 F. App'x 303, 307 (6th Cir. 2006) in Id Pg. 4. There is no Vincent v. Yelverton in the 6th Circuit in 2006 and the reporter number corresponds to United States v. Younes, 194 F. App'x 302 (6th Cir. 2006)

Questions this record answers

What happened in Shields v. First Financial?: Fabricated: Case Law | Doe v. Roe, No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) in Plaintiffs Motion for Limited Discovery Pg. 5. There is no Doe v. Roe case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2019 and No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV returns Jones v. Jones, No. M201801746COAR3CV, 2019 WL 1036077 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019). Outcome: Warning.
Why does Shields v. First Financial matter for legal AI risk?: Cross-check every reporter and docket number against primary databases before signing the brief; parallel-citation swaps are the tell.
What does the public record establish about Shields v. First Financial?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Shields v. First Financial 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.

Reaves Law Firm, PLLC v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, et al.W.D. Tennessee · Jun 2, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial Pate v. CMG Mortgage, Inc., et al.E.D. Tennessee · Apr 28, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial Edward Reynolds v. Progressive Technologies, Inc.W.D. Tennessee · Mar 30, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial Femhealth USA Carafem v. Rickey Nelson WilliamsM.D. Tennessee · Jan 23, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial Jeremie Montgomery v. AFL-CIOM.D. Tennessee · Nov 14, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial Jamison Warfield v. W.N. Morehouse Truck Line, Inc.E.D. Tennessee · Nov 6, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Cross-check every reporter and docket number against primary databases before signing the brief; parallel-citation swaps are the tell.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV, 2022 WLE 1512346, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2022) in Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Pg. 2. There is a Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, 639 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021), but neither 2022 WL 1512346 nor No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV return any case in Tennessee.

Fabricated: Legal Norm

Fabricated: Case Law | Doe v. Roe, 477 S.W.3d 321, 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) in /<7 Pg. 4. There is no Doe v. Roe in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2015 and the reporter number corresponds to Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

Fabricated: Case Law | Schultz v. Davis, 495 S.W.3d 821, 827 (Tenn. 2016) in Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Pg. 4. There is no Schultz v. Davis case in 2016 and the reporter number corresponds to State v. Dixon, 495 S.W.3d 812 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Fabricated: Case Law | Vincent v. Yelverton, 194 F. App'x 303, 307 (6th Cir. 2006) in Id Pg. 4. There is no Vincent v. Yelverton in the 6th Circuit in 2006 and the reporter number corresponds to United States v. Younes, 194 F. App'x 302 (6th Cir. 2006)

Questions this record answers

What happened in Shields v. First Financial?

Why does Shields v. First Financial matter for legal AI risk?

Cross-check every reporter and docket number against primary databases before signing the brief; parallel-citation swaps are the tell.

What does the public record establish about Shields v. First Financial?

Which source supports this Shields v. First Financial 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.