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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Berry v. Stewart
D. Kansas · Nov 14, 2024
KS / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotescontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant's briefing quoted a forum-selection clause that does not appear in the parties' contract or any filed papers; the actual clause is at Doc. 11-1 ¶ 12. Outcome: At hearing, Counsel pledged to reimburse other side and his client. In the November 2024 Show Cause Order, Judge Robinson noted that: "First, the briefing does not cite the forum-selection clause from the contract between the parties; instead, it cites and quotes a forum-selection clause that appears nowhere in the papers submitted by the parties. Second, Defendant’s reply brief includes a citation, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-CV-00262-JPM, 2020 WL 1882334 (D. Kan. Apr.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is At hearing, Counsel pledged to reimburse other side and his client; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Quoting contract language not in the record is a Rule 11 trap; cross-check every quoted clause against the filed document.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant's briefing quoted a forum-selection clause that does not appear in the parties' contract or any filed papers; the actual clause is at Doc. 11-1 ¶ 12. Outcome: At hearing, Counsel pledged to reimburse other side and his client. In the November 2024 Show Cause Order, Judge Robinson noted that: "First, the briefing does not cite the forum-selection clause from the contract between the parties; instead, it cites and quotes a forum-selection clause that appears nowhere in the papers submitted by the parties. Second, Defendant’s reply brief includes a citation, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-CV-00262-JPM, 2020 WL 1882334 (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2020), in which the court purportedly “transferred a case to the Southern District of Texas because the majority of the witnesses were located in Texas. The court found that the burden on the witnesses outweighed the convenience of litigating the case in Kansas.” As far as the Court can tell, this case does not exist. The Westlaw database number pulls up no case; the Court has found no case in CM/ECF between the parties “Hogan” and “Allstate Insurance Co.” Moreover, docket numbers in this district have at least four digits—not three—after the case-type designation, and there is no judge in this district with the initials “JPM.”"During the show cause hearing (Transcript), Counsel apologised and pledged to reimburse the other side's costs, as well as his client's.
Operational lesson
Quoting contract language not in the record is a Rule 11 trap; cross-check every quoted clause against the filed document.
Record details
KansasSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Kansas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateNov 14, 2024
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeAt hearing, Counsel pledged to reimburse other side and his client
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
At hearing, Counsel pledged to reimburse other side and his client
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: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant's briefing quoted a forum-selection clause that does not appear in the parties' contract or any filed papers; the actual clause is at Doc. 11-1 ¶ 12.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a non-existent case, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co.; Westlaw citation returns no case, no CM/ECF case exists, docket format is invalid for D. Kan., and no judge with initials JPM sits in the district.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Berry v. Stewart?
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Defendant's briefing quoted a forum-selection clause that does not appear in the parties' contract or any filed papers; the actual clause is at Doc. 11-1 ¶ 12. Outcome: At hearing, Counsel pledged to reimburse other side and his client. In the November 2024 Show Cause Order, Judge Robinson noted that: "First, the briefing does not cite the forum-selection clause from the contract between the parties; instead, it cites and quotes a forum-selection clause that appears nowhere in the papers submitted by the parties. Second, Defendant’s reply brief includes a citation, Hogan v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-CV-00262-JPM, 2020 WL 1882334 (D. Kan. Apr.…
- Why does Berry v. Stewart matter for legal AI risk?
- Quoting contract language not in the record is a Rule 11 trap; cross-check every quoted clause against the filed document.
- What does the public record establish about Berry v. Stewart?
- 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 Berry v. Stewart 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.