Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-13KHEAXGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway Group

CA Washington · Apr 20, 2026

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Washington
Record ID
arthur-west-v-lower-duwamish-waterway-group-2026-04-20
Observed outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's claims and issued a formal rebuke regarding the appellant's use of fabricated citations.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court rebuked the pro se appellant for including fictitious case quotations and fabricated citations in his appellate briefing. The court explicitly identified these as 'hallucinated' by generative AI or other sources, warning that such conduct is detrimental to the legal process and violates the duty of candor required of all litigants.

Why the decision-maker cared

The court reasoned that the appellant's inclusion of fictitious quotations and invented citations violated the duty of candor and the requirements of RAP 10.3(a)(6), which mandates that arguments be supported by accurate legal authority.

Why it matters now

This case serves as a clear judicial warning that courts will not tolerate the submission of AI-hallucinated citations. It reinforces the universal obligation of all litigants, including pro se parties, to verify the accuracy of every authority cited in their filings.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Administrative
  • Appellate
  • Warning
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
Generative AI (unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Appeal of a trial court's order granting summary judgment dismissal in favor of respondents and denying the appellant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The court attributed the fabricated citations to generative AI or other sources.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
  3. Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
  4. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.