Tapscott v. Fariss
CA Iowa · Oct 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Iowa
- Record ID
- tapscott-v-fariss-2026-10-07
- Observed outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | The court reported multiple suspected hallucinated case citations in the appellant’s brief, but the opinion did not reproduce or identify any individual citation. Tapscott failed to provide the cases or explain the citations when ordered. Outcome: Appeal dismissed. The court identified multiple hallucinated citations in Tapscott’s final self-represented appellate brief. It ordered him to provide the cases relied upon or explain the citations, but he did not respond. In combination with his repeated failures to comply with appellate briefing rules and prior warnings, the court dismissed the appeal.
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Appeal dismissed. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Appeal dismissed in CA Iowa. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Appellate
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal dismissed
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.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.