AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
Search free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 14, 2026 · Latest decision Nov 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAnish Sam Mathew v. Parv Verma
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

Anish Sam Mathew v. Parv Verma

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

Cite this record

E.D. Michigan · Aug 10, 2026

MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted risk of AI-generated 'phantom' or fabricated citations in filings and referenced a prior E.D. Mich. decision (Ali v. IT People Corp.) where a pro se litigant was sanctioned for such misrepresentations; court warned such fabricated citations will be sanctionable. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in E.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Docket
4:25-CV-13262 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan); Opinion and Order and Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Doc. 49 (filed 2026-08-10)

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted risk of AI-generated 'phantom' or fabricated citations in filings and referenced a prior E.D. Mich. decision (Ali v. IT People Corp.) where a pro se litigant was sanctioned for such misrepresentations; court warned such fabricated citations will be sanctionable. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in E.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateAug 10, 2026
First seenAug 16, 2026 (in this dataset)
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. Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted risk of AI-generated 'phantom' or fabricated citations in filings and referenced a prior E.D. Mich. decision (Ali v. IT People Corp.) where a pro se litigant was sanctioned for such misrepresentations; court warned such fabricated citations will be sanctionable.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Anish Sam Mathew v. Parv Verma?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted risk of AI-generated 'phantom' or fabricated citations in filings and referenced a prior E.D. Mich. decision (Ali v. IT People Corp.) where a pro se litigant was sanctioned for such misrepresentations; court warned such fabricated citations will be sanctionable. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Anish Sam Mathew v. Parv Verma matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in E.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Anish Sam Mathew v. Parv Verma?
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 Anish Sam Mathew v. Parv Verma 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.

Evans et al v. Robertson et al (1)E.D. Michigan · May 21, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsJackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPonder v. BCG Equities, LLCE.D. Michigan · Jul 27, 2026same court · pro se + otherPatrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAlishia Monique Jones v. Ahmed Taylor, et al.E.D. Michigan · Apr 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPatrick C. Shaltry, I v. Brent Benzing, et al.E.D. Michigan · Mar 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsTiffany K. v. Commissioner of Social SecurityE.D. Michigan · Jan 16, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

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.