Which source supports this Suday v. Suday 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.

HomeCasesSuday v. Suday

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Suday v. Suday

CA Texas · Jan 14, 2026

TX / state Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations family appellate Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se litigant regarding the use of AI tools for legal research after discovering that nearly all citations in the appellant's supplemental brief were fictitious. The court declined to strike the brief, choosing instead to address the merits of the case.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Garrison v. Garrison, 966 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Ex parte Hudson, 11 U.S. 225, 234 (1812)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Sabir v. Daud, No. 01-22-00956-CV, 2024 WL 3478110, at 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 18, 2024, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Douglas v. Douglas, 454 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1970, no writ)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Woodard v. Andrus, 419 S.W.3d 226, 234 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. denied)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Texas, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In Suday v. Suday, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District addressed an appeal involving a pro se litigant who submitted a supplemental brief containing numerous non-existent legal citations. The court conducted an exhaustive search and determined that the cited authorities were likely fictitious, suggesting the litigant utilized an artificial intelligence tool to generate the brief. Although the court noted that the inclusion of fabricated citations could serve as grounds for striking the brief, it elected to address the merits of the case as remanded by the Texas Supreme Court. The court issued a formal caution to the litigant and others regarding the unreliability of AI tools in producing accurate legal citations.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Texas, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope

Explore TXOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtCA Texas

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit5th Circuit

DateJan 14, 2026

AI toolunspecified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court affirmed the trial court's order and issued a warning regarding the use of AI tools for legal research.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court stated the litigant may have used an AI tool.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a county court order following a remand from the Supreme Court of Texas.

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 | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Garrison v. Garrison, 966 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Ex parte Hudson, 11 U.S. 225, 234 (1812)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Sabir v. Daud, No. 01-22-00956-CV, 2024 WL 3478110, at 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 18, 2024, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Douglas v. Douglas, 454 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1970, no writ)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Woodard v. Andrus, 419 S.W.3d 226, 234 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. denied)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Suday v. Suday?: The court issued a formal warning to the pro se litigant regarding the use of AI tools for legal research after discovering that nearly all citations in the appellant's supplemental brief were fictitious. The court declined to strike the brief, choosing instead to address the merits of the case.
Why does Suday v. Suday matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Texas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Suday v. Suday?: 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 Suday v. Suday 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.

In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., ChildrenCA Texas · Jul 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Paris v. ParisCA Texas · Jun 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations K.C. v. D.R.CA Texas · Apr 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Interest of M. O. W.CA Texas · Nov 7, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Kourradi v. ChristopherCA Texas · Aug 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., ChildrenCA Texas · Jul 30, 2026same court · fake citations + family

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA Texas profile Explore jurisdiction

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