AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 2, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 1, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAmbrose v. Swithin
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

Ambrose v. Swithin

D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2026

CT / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotestorttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase “totality of the defendant’s Connecticut-related conduct” to Cogswell as authority concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(1), but the court found that Cogswell addressed different long-arm statutes and could not locate the quoted language in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fabricated quotes and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with Warning in D. Connecticut. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase “totality of the defendant’s Connecticut-related conduct” to Cogswell as authority concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(1), but the court found that Cogswell addressed different long-arm statutes and could not locate the quoted language in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with Warning in D. Connecticut. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CTOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Connecticut
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateSep 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase “totality of the defendant’s Connecticut-related conduct” to Cogswell as authority concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(1), but the court found that Cogswell addressed different long-arm statutes and could not locate the quoted language in the opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ambrose v. Swithin?
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase “totality of the defendant’s Connecticut-related conduct” to Cogswell as authority concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(1), but the court found that Cogswell addressed different long-arm statutes and could not locate the quoted language in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Ambrose v. Swithin matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with Warning in D. Connecticut. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Ambrose v. Swithin?
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 Ambrose v. Swithin 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.

Ambrose v. ParlatoD. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesWilliams v. Federal Aviation Administration et al.D. Connecticut · Sep 28, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesChristopher A. Ambrose v. Bandy X. LeeD. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + tortBraica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)D. Connecticut · Dec 15, 2025same court · pro se + fabricated quotesReilly v. Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. AgencyD. Connecticut · Jun 20, 2025same court · pro se + fabricated quotesUlish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National AssociationD. Connecticut · Aug 5, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotes