What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. McClure, 199 S.W.3d 429, 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005),' but the citation points to an unrelated Texas opinion and the real McClure decision is from 1990 (No. 169, 1990 WL 6378); court treated this as an invented/misleading citation. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Appellant quoted Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-304(a)(4) with language about landlord maintenance of electrical, plumbing, and HVAC, but the actual statutory subsection concerns refuse receptacles; the brief's statutory quotation was false. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Puckett v. Estate of Puckett, 174 S.W.3d 252, 257 (Tenn. 2005),' but no Tennessee Supreme Court opinion under that name exists and the reporter page corresponds to a different Court of Appeals opinion; court treated the case name/citation as fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | The brief relied on multiple real cases but used false or misleading quotations from those decisions (unspecified individual quotations identified by the court).

Sanction teardown · CA Tennessee, USA · 2026-07-29

Harding Place Multifamily Partners v. Samuel Robinson

What happened

In CA Tennessee, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Fabricated (Case Law)

Appellant cited 'First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. McClure, 199 S.W.3d 429, 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005),' but the citation points to an unrelated Texas opinion and the real McClure decision is from 1990 (No. 169, 1990 WL 6378); court treated this as an invented/misleading citation.
False Quotes (Legal Norm)

Appellant quoted Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-304(a)(4) with language about landlord maintenance of electrical, plumbing, and HVAC, but the actual statutory subsection concerns refuse receptacles; the brief's statutory quotation was false.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Appellant cited 'Puckett v. Estate of Puckett, 174 S.W.3d 252, 257 (Tenn. 2005),' but no Tennessee Supreme Court opinion under that name exists and the reporter page corresponds to a different Court of Appeals opinion; court treated the case name/citation as fabricated.
False Quotes (Case Law)

The brief relied on multiple real cases but used false or misleading quotations from those decisions (unspecified individual quotations identified by the court).

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Not specified in source record.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2728/Harding_Place_Multifamily_Partners_LLC_Emers_DJju7pu._Samuel_Robinson_USA_30_July_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template