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.
Buckner v. Hilton Global
W.D. Kentucky · Mar 21, 2025
KY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytort
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case: Moss v. Parsons, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999); the Court confirmed the case does not exist. Outcome: Warning. In a subsequent Order, the court pointed out that "This Court's opinion pointing out Buckner's citation to nonexistent case law, along with its implications, is an issue for appeal and not a valid basis for recusal. "
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Courts reject recusal motions built on judicial hallucination findings; preserve the issue for appeal instead.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case: Moss v. Parsons, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999); the Court confirmed the case does not exist. Outcome: Warning. In a subsequent Order, the court pointed out that "This Court's opinion pointing out Buckner's citation to nonexistent case law, along with its implications, is an issue for appeal and not a valid basis for recusal. "
Operational lesson
Courts reject recusal motions built on judicial hallucination findings; preserve the issue for appeal instead.
Record details
KentuckySingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Kentucky
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateMar 21, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
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
Warning
Correction behavior
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 | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case: Moss v. Parsons, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999); the Court confirmed the case does not exist.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enterprises, Inc., 818 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. 1987) as supporting that calling someone 'aggressive' carries defamatory sting; the Court found Trotter did not discuss that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff alleged his severance required waiving claims against Hilton; the Court noted the severance agreement does not mention Hilton.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Buckner v. Hilton Global?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case: Moss v. Parsons, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999); the Court confirmed the case does not exist. Outcome: Warning. In a subsequent Order, the court pointed out that "This Court's opinion pointing out Buckner's citation to nonexistent case law, along with its implications, is an issue for appeal and not a valid basis for recusal. "
- Why does Buckner v. Hilton Global matter for legal AI risk?
- Courts reject recusal motions built on judicial hallucination findings; preserve the issue for appeal instead.
- What does the public record establish about Buckner v. Hilton Global?
- 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 Buckner v. Hilton Global 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.