Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 26, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 25, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc.

D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited Rodriguez for the proposition that defendants were barred from filing additional Rule 12 motions, but Rodriguez did not mention Rule 12 and did not support that proposition. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked in D. Massachusetts. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited Rodriguez for the proposition that defendants were barred from filing additional Rule 12 motions, but Rodriguez did not mention Rule 12 and did not support that proposition. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked in D. Massachusetts. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MassachusettsSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Massachusetts
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 25, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeAdverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked
Known amount$10,000
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

Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited Rodriguez for the proposition that defendants were barred from filing additional Rule 12 motions, but Rodriguez did not mention Rule 12 and did not support that proposition.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | The brief attributed a quotation to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Jones using a fictitious Westlaw citation; the court treated the authority as fabricated.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited Henderson for a proposition that the case did not support.
  4. Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited Correa-Martinez for a legal standard that the case did not state.
  5. False Quotes: Case Law | The brief attributed a quotation to J&A Realty that the case did not contain and relied on a legal standard the case did not state.
  6. False Quotes: Case Law | The brief cited a non-existent quotation from Glassman.
  7. Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief altered a quotation from Love without identifying the changes and mischaracterized the case’s holding.
  8. False Quotes: Case Law | The brief materially altered quotations attributed to Neilson, Hanley, and Karle without disclosing the alterations.
Show 5 additional discrepancies
  1. Misrepresented: Case Law | The Enterprise Opposition again cited Rodriguez for the unsupported Rule 12 proposition.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | The briefs cited a fictitious case identifying Dorchester Mutual Insurance Company as plaintiff; after searching Westlaw, Lexis, and Bloomberg, the court found no such case.
  3. False Quotes: Case Law | The brief cited Green Mountain Insurance Company for a quotation the case did not contain.
  4. False Quotes: Case Law | The brief cited Citizens Insurance for a quotation it did not contain and a legal proposition it did not state.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | The brief asserted that the defendants cited Moore v. GEICO and supplied a fictitious citation, although the defendants had not cited that case; the court also noted the case’s procedural history was misstated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc.?
Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited Rodriguez for the proposition that defendants were barred from filing additional Rule 12 motions, but Rodriguez did not mention Rule 12 and did not support that proposition. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked.
Why does Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Adverse Costs Order; Pro hac vice status revoked in D. Massachusetts. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc.?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc. 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.