AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 26, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesA.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

CA Kentucky · May 22, 2026

KY / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesfamilyNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a pro se litigant's motion for relief from judgment after the trial court identified that the litigant had cited non-existent case law and fabricated quotations in her filings, raising significant concerns regarding her candor and credibility before the court.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant cited non-existent case law (court described some cited authorities as 'non-existent')..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, the CA Kentucky addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited non-existent case law (court described some cited authorities as 'non-existent'). The recorded procedural consequence is OPINION AFFIRMING. The entry is dated 2026-05-22. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

KentuckySingle-state evidence scope
Explore KYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Kentucky
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit6th Circuit
DateMay 22, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's order denying the appellant's motions for relief from judgment.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Appeal from the Fayette Circuit Court's denial of CR 60.02 motions; the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited non-existent case law (court described some cited authorities as 'non-existent').
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant quoted language purportedly from Burke v. Sexton, but the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky?
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a pro se litigant's motion for relief from judgment after the trial court identified that the litigant had cited non-existent case law and fabricated quotations in her filings, raising significant concerns regarding her candor and credibility before the court.
Why does A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this A.T.W. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Teresa Jewel Whitten v. Kristopher Brian EverittCA Kentucky · Jul 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSherdena Rocky Ali v. Carlos Efre IdiokitasCA Kentucky · May 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGrobler v. Kentucky Housing CorporationCA Kentucky · Oct 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPamela Blair v. Sanctuary Bluff Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.CA Kentucky · Mar 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsCrowder v. YussmanCA Kentucky · Oct 24, 2025same court · fake citations + appellateVarela v. HauserCA Arizona (1d) · Sep 17, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.