Shields v. First Financial
Tennessee · Nov 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Tennessee
- Record ID
- shields-v-first-financial-2025-11-21
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the motion to amend the complaint and issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the verification of legal citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to plaintiff's counsel regarding the inclusion of multiple fabricated or incorrect legal citations in court filings. The judge noted that these errors are characteristic of AI-generated research and ordered counsel to verify the accuracy of all future legal citations.
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)
Cross-check every reporter and docket number against primary databases before signing the brief; parallel-citation swaps are the tell.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Other
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and issuing a judicial caution regarding citation accuracy.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.