Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Anna Sheerer v. Thomas Panas
CA California (d1) · Mar 19, 2026
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.
- 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
CourtCA California (d1)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 19, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent cited a non-existent case as authority; court identified the citation as fabricated.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.