HomeCasesSimmons v. Shahidul Islam

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Simmons v. Shahidul Islam

CA Tennessee · May 21, 2026

TN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytort

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Tennessee, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Tennessee, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

TennesseeSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Tennessee

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit6th Circuit

DateMay 21, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited existing cases but attributed propositions to them that they do not support; the court found these were misrepresentations of precedent and not persuasive.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Simmons v. Shahidul Islam?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions.
Why does Simmons v. Shahidul Islam matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Tennessee, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Simmons v. Shahidul Islam?: 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 Simmons v. Shahidul Islam 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.

Moses v. StateCA Tennessee · Feb 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Merritt v. MooreCA Tennessee · Jul 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑KamerathCA Washington · Jun 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Shaddai Harris v. Nadia Lyotard and Mitchell SadlerCA Texas · Jun 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Christ Apostolic Temple, Inc., Dwight Reed and Jordan Reed v. Demetrius Sinegal, et al.CA Iowa · May 27, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Boersma v. DavenportCA Oregon · May 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions.

Operational lesson

Record details

TennesseeSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Tennessee

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit6th Circuit

DateMay 21, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited existing cases but attributed propositions to them that they do not support; the court found these were misrepresentations of precedent and not persuasive.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Simmons v. Shahidul Islam?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included case citations that do not appear to exist; the court labeled these as AI 'hallucinations' and found they did not support appellant's propositions.

Why does Simmons v. Shahidul Islam matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Simmons v. Shahidul Islam?

Which source supports this Simmons v. Shahidul Islam 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.