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.
Arrieta v. Cervantes
CA Arizona · Jul 15, 2026
AZ / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfamilyappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Arrieta v. Cervantes, the CA Arizona addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it. The recorded procedural consequence is Adverse Costs Order. The entry is dated 2026-07-15. 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: Appellant cited 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it..
- 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 Arrieta v. Cervantes, the CA Arizona addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it. The recorded procedural consequence is Adverse Costs Order. The entry is dated 2026-07-15. 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
ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Arizona
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJul 15, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAdverse Costs Order
Known amount$1
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
Adverse Costs Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Silva v. De Mendoza', another case the court identified as nonexistent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Arrieta v. Cervantes?
- In Arrieta v. Cervantes, the CA Arizona addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it. The recorded procedural consequence is Adverse Costs Order. The entry is dated 2026-07-15. 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 Arrieta v. Cervantes 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 Arrieta v. Cervantes?
- 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 Arrieta v. Cervantes 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.