Shields v. First Financial
- Party
- Lawyer
- AI Tool
- Implied / unconfirmed
Hallucinated Content
Fabricated
- Case Law
Doe v. Roe, No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) in Plaintiffs Motion for Limited Discovery Pg. 5. There is no Doe v. Roe case in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2019 and No. M2018-01746-COA-R3-CV returns Jones v. Jones, No. M201801746COAR3CV, 2019 WL 1036077 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019).
- Case Law
Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV, 2022 WLE 1512346, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2022) in Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Pg. 2. There is a Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, 639 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021), but neither 2022 WL 1512346 nor No. M2021-01280-COA-R9-CV return any case in Tennessee.
- Legal Norm
- Case Law
Doe v. Roe, 477 S.W.3d 321, 326 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) in /<7 Pg. 4. There is no Doe v. Roe in the Tennessee Court of Appeals in 2015 and the reporter number corresponds to Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
- Case Law
Schultz v. Davis, 495 S.W.3d 821, 827 (Tenn. 2016) in Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Pg. 4. There is no Schultz v. Davis case in 2016 and the reporter number corresponds to State v. Dixon, 495 S.W.3d 812 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
- Case Law
Vincent v. Yelverton, 194 F. App'x 303, 307 (6th Cir. 2006) in Id Pg. 4. There is no Vincent v. Yelverton in the 6th Circuit in 2006 and the reporter number corresponds to United States v. Younes, 194 F. App'x 302 (6th Cir. 2006)
Outcome
Protect Your Firm Before the Next Sanction
This case is one of 921 documented AI hallucination incidents in legal proceedings. The AI Ethics Training for Attorneys covers the specific failure modes, the Model Rules at risk, and the verification protocols that prevent them — built directly from the sanctions record.