Beason v. Wheeler
DC Oklahoma · Nov 19, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The trial-court order allegedly cited Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 44, 958 P.2d 594, as an Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision adopting Schlagenhauf standards for examinations under 12 O.S. § 3235. The petitioner states that 1998 OK CIV APP 44 is actually Robbins v. Robbins, which concerns alleged ex parte communications in a custody matter, and that 958 P.2d 594 is an Idaho case, Harpole v. State, unrelated to § 3235. Outcome: Judge acknowledged mistake. Allegations first made by Counsel in underlying case (see here). Judge later acknowledged the lapse (see here), and is now under investigation.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Judge acknowledged mistake. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Judge acknowledged mistake in DC Oklahoma. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The trial-court order allegedly cited Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 44, 958 P.2d 594, as an Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision adopting Schlagenhauf standards for examinations under 12 O.S. § 3235. The petitioner states that 1998 OK CIV APP 44 is actually Robbins v. Robbins, which concerns alleged ex parte communications in a custody matter, and that 958 P.2d 594 is an Idaho case, Harpole v. State, unrelated to § 3235. Outcome: Judge acknowledged mistake. Allegations first made by Counsel in underlying case (see here). Judge later acknowledged the lapse (see here), and is now under investigation.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Judge acknowledged mistake in DC Oklahoma. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Judge acknowledged mistake
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The trial-court order allegedly cited Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 44, 958 P.2d 594, as an Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision adopting Schlagenhauf standards for examinations under 12 O.S. § 3235. The petitioner states that 1998 OK CIV APP 44 is actually Robbins v. Robbins, which concerns alleged ex parte communications in a custody matter, and that 958 P.2d 594 is an Idaho case, Harpole v. State, unrelated to § 3235.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The trial-court order allegedly cited Hawkins v. Linhart, 2009 OK CIV APP 106, 234 P.3d 240, as reaffirming that § 3235 is not self-executing and requires an in-controversy and good-cause showing. The petitioner states that 2009 OK CIV APP 106 is actually Bunch v. Terpenning, concerning the Consumer Credit Code, and that 234 P.3d 240 does not correspond to an Oklahoma case; the cited reporter volume instead identifies an unrelated Washington case, Bennett v. Smith Bunday Berman Britton, PS.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The trial-court order allegedly attributed a detailed quotation and legal propositions concerning psychological examinations, emotional-distress claims, and the requirements of § 3235 to the nonexistent Cummings and Hawkins decisions. The petitioner asserts that neither purported case exists and that the actual cases associated with the cited references do not contain or support those propositions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Beason v. Wheeler?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The trial-court order allegedly cited Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 44, 958 P.2d 594, as an Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision adopting Schlagenhauf standards for examinations under 12 O.S. § 3235. The petitioner states that 1998 OK CIV APP 44 is actually Robbins v. Robbins, which concerns alleged ex parte communications in a custody matter, and that 958 P.2d 594 is an Idaho case, Harpole v. State, unrelated to § 3235. Outcome: Judge acknowledged mistake. Allegations first made by Counsel in underlying case (see here). Judge later acknowledged the lapse (see here), and is now under investigation.
- Why does Beason v. Wheeler matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Judge acknowledged mistake in DC Oklahoma. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Beason v. Wheeler?
- 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 Beason v. Wheeler 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.