Simmons v. Shahidul Islam
CA Tennessee · May 21, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Tennessee
- Record ID
- simmons-v-shahidul-islam-2026-05-21
- Observed outcome
- The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying the appellant's motions for relief, sanctions, and substitution.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee identified that the pro se appellant's brief contained citations to non-existent cases, which it characterized as 'artificial intelligence hallucinations.' The court further noted that the appellant misattributed propositions to existing cases, finding these misrepresentations unpersuasive and insufficient to support his legal arguments.
The court reasoned that the appellant's reliance on non-existent cases and mischaracterized precedent failed to support his legal arguments, and that the underlying summary judgment was final and not voided by the death of a party during the initial appeal.
This case illustrates the judicial identification and rejection of AI-generated hallucinations and misrepresentations in pro se appellate briefing. It reinforces the expectation that all cited authorities must be verified for existence and accuracy, regardless of the research method employed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_precedent
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court's order denying multiple post-judgment motions, including a Rule 60.02 motion for relief from judgment, following the affirmance of a summary judgment in a health care liability action.
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
The court identified the use of artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Independently verify the existence and citation of every legal authority before inclusion in any court filing.
- Ensure that all cited cases accurately support the specific legal propositions for which they are offered.
- Implement rigorous quality control processes for all research outputs, including those generated by or assisted by AI tools.
- Review the full appellate opinion to understand the court's specific treatment of procedural and substantive arguments.