Georgia · state appellate court · 2026

Shani Washington v. Jermel Washington

Court of Appeals of Georgia, 4 June 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · Ga. Ct. App.

  1. Court. Court of Appeals of GeorgiaCOURT
  2. Level. state appellate courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 4 June 2026DATED
  4. Docket. No. A26A0506DOCKET
  5. Documents. one document, 4 passages quoted belowON FILE
  6. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.

Published opinion, 4 June 2026 · source · PDF · 11 pages

The parenting plan provided that non-school day exchanges of custody would occur at the Vinings Vintage Clubhouse or Mother’s house. 1 As an initial matter, we are troubled by Mother’s citation to fictitious cases and fictitious quotations throughout her appellate brief. “ Such ‘hallucinated’ cases are typically a hallmark of the irresponsible use of regenerative artificial intelligence (A.I.) in legal drafting.” Slay v.

1, 1 (927 SE2d 569) (2026). While Mother is pro se, she is nonetheless required to follow the rules of this Court, and we caution her that any future filings in this Court containing fictitious cases and/or fictitious quotations may result in the imposition of sanctions against her. See Court of Appeals Rule 7(e)(2) (“ The panel of the Court ruling on a case, with or without motion, may by majority vote to impose a penalty not to exceed $10,000 against any party and/or a party’s counsel in any civil case in which there is a direct appeal, application for discretionary appeal, application for interlocutory appeal, or motion that is determined to be frivolous.” ); Modi v.

Mother argues that the trial court erred by awarding Father attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-2. However, in support of this argument, Mother cites five fictitious cases and two real cases which provide no support for her enumerated error, Johnson v. Johnson, 260 Ga.

Franklin, 294 Ga. 204 (751 SE2d 411) (2013)] and other applicable Georgia law, in the event of an appeal of this final order 9 on contempt, the provisions of this order shall constitute a new temporary order (suspending all prior temporary or final relief to the contrary) during the pendency of such appeal and the parties shall be bound by the terms even while an appeal is pending.” Mother argues that the trial court’s use of the above language “exc eeded its jurisdiction and improperly encroached upon the appellate process.” However, again, in support of this argument, Mother cites fictitious cases. Specifically, Mother cites three fictitious cases, and one inapposite case, Hawkins v.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from Court of Appeals of Georgia, from Georgia, or from 2026. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on my files