HomeCasesBoatner v. Hickerson

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.

Corpus matter record

Boatner v. Hickerson

CA Missouri · Jun 2, 2026

MO / stateEditorial impact: highpro sefake citationsotherappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Davis v. Bess' in support of points; the Court found the citation fabricated and not cited in argument, undermining the brief's reliability. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MissouriSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Missouri

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit8th Circuit

DateJun 2, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$10,000

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

Monetary Sanction

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Davis v. Bess' in support of points; the Court found the citation fabricated and not cited in argument, undermining the brief's reliability.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Jones v. Jones' which the Court determined to be fictitious and unsupported, contributing to the finding of fraud on the Court.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on 'Kelley v. Kelley,' which the Court found does not exist as cited and was generated by A.I., impairing appellate review.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant referenced 'Stein v. Steeplechase Condominiums, Inc.,' another fictitious authority identified by the Court as A.I.-generated and not a valid precedent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Boatner v. Hickerson?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Davis v. Bess' in support of points; the Court found the citation fabricated and not cited in argument, undermining the brief's reliability. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why does Boatner v. Hickerson matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Boatner v. Hickerson?: 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 Boatner v. Hickerson 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.

State of Missouri v. Timothy H. MooreCA Missouri · Jun 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kruse v. KarlenCA Missouri · Feb 13, 2024same court · pro se + appellate Hayes v. MillerCA Missouri · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Dineen/Shibata v. KotchkaCA Arizona (1d) · Jul 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Groulx v. CSL LimitedCA Michigan · Dec 19, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. GutierrezCA Florida (3d) · Dec 4, 2024pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Tracked discrepancy record

4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Jones v. Jones' which the Court determined to be fictitious and unsupported, contributing to the finding of fraud on the Court.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on 'Kelley v. Kelley,' which the Court found does not exist as cited and was generated by A.I., impairing appellate review.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant referenced 'Stein v. Steeplechase Condominiums, Inc.,' another fictitious authority identified by the Court as A.I.-generated and not a valid precedent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Boatner v. Hickerson?

Why does Boatner v. Hickerson matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary Sanction in CA Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

What does the public record establish about Boatner v. Hickerson?

Which source supports this Boatner v. Hickerson 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.