Replays · E.D. Tex. · November 25, 2024
A wrongful termination suit and a summary judgment response. The defendant's reply pointed out two cases it could not find. The response was not corrected until the court ordered counsel to show cause.
The court found that counsel "submitted the Response without reading the cases cited, or even confirming the existence or validity of the cases included therein." (Memorandum and Order, p. 5)
"Moreover, he failed to correct these issues when opposing counsel identified them." (Memorandum and Order, p. 6)
| as filed | what the court said | what the register holds at this citation | our default check today | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases the court lists as not existing (note 1) | ||||
| 1 | Roca v. King's Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App'x 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished)Quoted in the filing: "whether an employer's request rises to the level of a 'requirement' is generally a question of fact." (Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment, p. 2) | Listed in note 1 among "[t]he nonexistent cases"; note 2 also lists quotations from it. (p. 1) | No case starts at this page. It falls inside United States v. James Brooks (5th Cir. 2012), which starts at 500 F. App'x 270. | Check this Register holds a different case at this citation: United States v. James Brooks (2012) |
| 2 | Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994) (unpublished) | Listed in note 1 among "[t]he nonexistent cases". (p. 1) | A Westlaw number, not a page. No open register holds these. | Cannot verify Westlaw/Lexis identifier. Open registers cannot resolve it |
| Cases the court lists for quotations it could not find (note 2)The order does not reproduce the quoted words, so we took each quotation from the filed response (ECF 41) and ran it with its citation. | ||||
| 3 | Morales v. SimuFlite Training Int'l, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.)Quoted in the filing: "whether an employer's statement rises to the level of a 'request' or 'requirement' is generally a question of fact." (Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment, p. 3) | Listed in note 2: "The Response cites nonexistent quotations from the following cases". (p. 2) | Morales v. Simuflite Training International, Inc. (Tex. App. 2004) | Check this Quoted language not in the opinion |
| 4 | White v. FCI USA, Inc., 319 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003)Quoted in the filing: "typically a fact issue to be decided by a jury." (Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment, p. 3) | Listed in note 2. (p. 2) | White v. FCI USA Inc (5th Cir. 2003) | Check this Quoted language not in the opinion |
| 5 | Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222, 233 (5th Cir. 2015)Quoted in the filing: "the issue of the employer's true motive for termination is typically a question of fact for the jury" (Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment, p. 4) | Listed in note 2. (p. 2) | Nicole Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et (5th Cir. 2015) | Check this Quoted language not in the opinion |
| 6 | Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. 1995)Quoted in the filing: "[w]hether the plaintiff's refusal to perform an illegal act was the sole cause for the plaintiff's discharge is a question of fact." (Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment, p. 5) | Listed in note 2. (p. 2) | Texas Department of Human Services v. Hinds (Tex. 1995) | Check this Quoted language not in the opinion |
| 7 | Physio GP, Inc. v. Naifeh, 306 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.)Quoted in the filing: "whether an employee's refusal to perform an illegal act was the sole cause for his termination generally presents a question of fact." (Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment, p. 5) | Listed in note 2. (p. 2) | PHYSIO GP, INC. v. Naifeh (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) | Check this Quoted language not in the opinion |
| 8 | City of Midland v. O'Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209, 216 (Tex. 2000)Quoted in the filing: "legitimate reasons" (Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment, p. 5) | Listed in note 2. (p. 2) | City of Midland v. O'BRYANT (Tex. 2000) | Found Found: City of Midland v. O'BRYANT (Tex. 2000)The response quotes only two words from this case ("legitimate reasons"), too few for the quote check, so the row reports the case only. |
8 citations. Run September 24, 2026 with the default check, engine 0.5.0, register data of June 30, 2026: 6 Check this, 1 Cannot verify, 1 Found. Each citation was pasted as a line of text (the quoted words first, where we have them) and checked the way the checker checks a draft: no language model, nothing stored. The register column is a direct lookup of the volume and page.
Six red rows. The register holds a different case at the Roca citation, and the quote check could not find five of the six quotations from real cases in those opinions (the sixth is two words, too short to check). The Beets citation is a Westlaw number to check by hand. The defendant's reply had already pointed to the two cases.
Paste the draft or upload the PDF. The default check reads every case citation and returns rows like the ones above in a few seconds, with no language model and nothing stored. It is free to try without an account. Then read what the court would read: every case you cite, at the page you cite.
Check a draft before you fileAll replays
Published September 24, 2026, updated September 24, 2026. We read the decision and copied the court's list; if we have misread it, write to hello@proofread.law. The rows are from the run dated above; they can change when the checker does.