AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 12, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAnna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas
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

Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas

CA California (d1) · Mar 19, 2026

CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesfamilyWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the respondent regarding the submission of AI-generated fabrications. Although the court held that the respondent's conduct merited striking the brief and potential sanctions, it declined to impose monetary penalties, opting instead to issue a published warning to all in propria persona litigants regarding the duty to verify all citations.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated..
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 Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas, the CA California (d1) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-03-19. 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

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA California (d1)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 19, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court issued a published warning to the respondent and all in propria persona litigants regarding the duty to verify citations, while declining to impose monetary sanctions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The respondent admitted to using an unidentified generative AI tool.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a trial court order modifying child support, during which the court addressed the respondent's submission of a brief containing AI-generated fabrications.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated.
  3. False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed quotations to real cases that do not contain those quotations; court found the quotes fabricated and not present in the cited authorities.
  4. Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Respondent referenced hearings and factual events not reflected in the record (appear to be fabricated submissions/record entries).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas?
The court issued a formal warning to the respondent regarding the submission of AI-generated fabrications. Although the court held that the respondent's conduct merited striking the brief and potential sanctions, it declined to impose monetary penalties, opting instead to issue a published warning to all in propria persona litigants regarding the duty to verify all citations.
Why does Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas 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 Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas?
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 Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas 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.

Samuel K. v. Winsley FociaCA California · Feb 26, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsPatterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsHowell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-RotaCA California · Dec 15, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsRobert S. Hulvat v. Juli Gumina, STG Divorce Law, and Jennifer B. HulvatCA Illinois (3d) · Apr 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedTrina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsIn re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan CraigCA California (6d) · Apr 22, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations