Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Thackston on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Thackston v. Driscoll

Court
W.D. Texas
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2025-08-28
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Magistrate Judge recommended Rule 11 sanctions
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Fabela v. Socorro ISD for anti-retaliation/hostile-work-environment propositions the case does not discuss, per the court. || Fabricated: Case Law | Asserted a Ninth Circuit opinion and quotation (United States v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2010)) that the court found does not exist in that reporter citation or elsewhere. || Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Attributed a remedial-quotation to the EEOC Compliance Manual (Section 3) that the court could not locate; court noted Section 3 concerns employee benefits, not 'remedies' as represented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cited Armstrong v. Turner Industries and supplied a restorative-remedy quotation and Rehabilitation Act context that the court found absent from the cited opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Represented a Seventh Circuit AutoZone case as approving a consent decree with a third‑party monitor; court found the cited case number refers to an unrelated opinion and existing AutoZone decisions do not discuss appointment of such a monitor as claimed. || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Relied on Chevron as controlling deference doctrine despite Chevron having been overruled by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright; court noted Chevron is overruled. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation about the Rehabilitation Act and restorative assignments to Palmer v. Shultz; court found Palmer is a Title VII D.C. Cir. case and the quoted language does not appear in Palmer or any case the court could locate. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cited an opinion and quotation attributed to EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc.; court found the quoted language does not exist in that case or any federal case searched. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a specific quote to Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars though the quotation does not appear in that decision, per the court's review. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited LHC Group for a retaliation-holding the court concluded that case is not about retaliation as presented by plaintiff.

Details

Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff's Reply contained multiple citations that do not exist, quotes not found in the cited authorities, and material mischaracterizations of cases; court concluded counsel likely used generative AI and failed to verify outputs and recommended the District Court consider Rule 11 sanctions.

Sanction teardown · W.D. Texas, USA · 2025-08-28

Thackston v. Driscoll

What happened

In W.D. Texas, 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:

  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited Fabela v. Socorro ISD for anti-retaliation/hostile-work-environment propositions the case does not discuss, per the court.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Asserted a Ninth Circuit opinion and quotation (United States v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2010)) that the court found does not exist in that reporter citation or elsewhere.
  • Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)
    Attributed a remedial-quotation to the EEOC Compliance Manual (Section 3) that the court could not locate; court noted Section 3 concerns employee benefits, not 'remedies' as represented.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Cited Armstrong v. Turner Industries and supplied a restorative-remedy quotation and Rehabilitation Act context that the court found absent from the cited opinion.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Represented a Seventh Circuit AutoZone case as approving a consent decree with a third‑party monitor; court found the cited case number refers to an unrelated opinion and existing AutoZone decisions do not discuss appointment of such a monitor as claimed.
  • Outdated Advice (Overturned Case Law)
    Relied on Chevron as controlling deference doctrine despite Chevron having been overruled by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright; court noted Chevron is overruled.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Attributed a quotation about the Rehabilitation Act and restorative assignments to Palmer v. Shultz; court found Palmer is a Title VII D.C. Cir. case and the quoted language does not appear in Palmer or any case the court could locate.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Cited an opinion and quotation attributed to EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc.; court found the quoted language does not exist in that case or any federal case searched.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Attributed a specific quote to Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars though the quotation does not appear in that decision, per the court's review.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited LHC Group for a retaliation-holding the court concluded that case is not about retaliation as presented by plaintiff.

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

Magistrate Judge recommended Rule 11 sanctions

Additional detail

Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff's Reply contained multiple citations that do not exist, quotes not found in the cited authorities, and material mischaracterizations of cases; court concluded counsel likely used generative AI and failed to verify outputs and recommended the District Court consider Rule 11 sanctions.

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/730/Thackston_v._Secretary_of_the_Army_USA_28_August_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/730/Thackston_v._Secretary_of_the_Army_USA_28_August_2025.pdf

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 checkerBack 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 — $49Sanctions-motion template