Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 21, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 18, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAppeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC
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

Appeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC

ASBCA · Jul 13, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Lockheed Martin Corp., ASBCA No. 57525, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 to support that contract interpretation is a question of law for summary judgment; Board found the citation fictitious/miscited and that 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 actually addresses Raytheon Missile Systems (a jurisdiction motion), and Lockheed Martin appears at 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,017 which does not support the asserted proposition. Outcome: Citations struck.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Citations struck. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Citations struck in ASBCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Lockheed Martin Corp., ASBCA No. 57525, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 to support that contract interpretation is a question of law for summary judgment; Board found the citation fictitious/miscited and that 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 actually addresses Raytheon Missile Systems (a jurisdiction motion), and Lockheed Martin appears at 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,017 which does not support the asserted proposition. Outcome: Citations struck.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Citations struck in ASBCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtASBCA
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 13, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCitations struck
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

Citations struck

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 | Appellant cited Lockheed Martin Corp., ASBCA No. 57525, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 to support that contract interpretation is a question of law for summary judgment; Board found the citation fictitious/miscited and that 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 actually addresses Raytheon Missile Systems (a jurisdiction motion), and Lockheed Martin appears at 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,017 which does not support the asserted proposition.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Metric Constructors, Inc., ASBCA No. 50843, 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,134 to support that warranties may not be expanded beyond express terms; Board found the citation fictitious and that 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,134 actually addresses Bean Horizon-Weeks Marine and does not concern warranties (Metric Constructors appears at 98-2 BCA ¶ 30,088 and does not support the assertion).
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Blinderman Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 55770, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,257 to support warranty principles; Board found the citation fictitious—09-2 BCA ¶ 34,257 corresponds to Vibration and Sound Solutions and does not address warranties, and ASBCA No. 55770 is the docket for AMES Corp., which settled without a decision.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited J. A. Jones Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 38679, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,241 to support that warranties may not be implied from performance specs; Board found the citation fictitious—90-3 BCA ¶ 23,241 actually addresses Goetz Demolition and not warranties, and ASBCA No. 38679 corresponds to Camel Manufacturing with no published decision.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Appeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Lockheed Martin Corp., ASBCA No. 57525, 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 to support that contract interpretation is a question of law for summary judgment; Board found the citation fictitious/miscited and that 13-1 BCA ¶ 35,241 actually addresses Raytheon Missile Systems (a jurisdiction motion), and Lockheed Martin appears at 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,017 which does not support the asserted proposition. Outcome: Citations struck.
Why does Appeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Citations struck in ASBCA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Appeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC?
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 Appeal of PDO Ahuska Joint Venture LLC 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.