Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 5, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 31, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesCarey v. Breakell et al.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Carey v. Breakell et al.

D. Utah · Jul 30, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | The Opposition miscited a real Tenth Circuit decision (Huff v. Reeves) as having been issued in 2022; the court noted the miscitation in its review. The district court found multiple case citations in Plaintiff’s counsel’s Opposition could not be located on Westlaw and appeared to be fake (suggesting improper use of AI). The court explained that citation to non-existent opinions undermines filings and may violate Rule 11, but because it was transferring the case to Arizona it left investigation or sanctioning to the receiving judge rather than imposing relief itself.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | The Opposition miscited a real Tenth Circuit decision (Huff v. Reeves) as having been issued in 2022; the court noted the miscitation in its review. The district court found multiple case citations in Plaintiff’s counsel’s Opposition could not be located on Westlaw and appeared to be fake (suggesting improper use of AI). The court explained that citation to non-existent opinions undermines filings and may violate Rule 11, but because it was transferring the case to Arizona it left investigation or sanctioning to the receiving judge rather than imposing relief itself.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

UtahSingle-state evidence scope
Explore UTOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Utah
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateJul 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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.

  1. Misrepresented: Case Law | The Opposition miscited a real Tenth Circuit decision (Huff v. Reeves) as having been issued in 2022; the court noted the miscitation in its review.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cited 'Larsen v. Davis Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2017 UT App 27, ¶¶ 14–16, 392 P.3d 1008' which the court could not locate and treated as a non-existent opinion.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cited 'Dale v. Bennett, 921 P.2d 466, 469 (Utah 1996)' which the court was unable to locate and identified as a likely fake opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Carey v. Breakell et al.?
Misrepresented: Case Law | The Opposition miscited a real Tenth Circuit decision (Huff v. Reeves) as having been issued in 2022; the court noted the miscitation in its review. The district court found multiple case citations in Plaintiff’s counsel’s Opposition could not be located on Westlaw and appeared to be fake (suggesting improper use of AI). The court explained that citation to non-existent opinions undermines filings and may violate Rule 11, but because it was transferring the case to Arizona it left investigation or sanctioning to the receiving judge rather than imposing relief itself.
Why does Carey v. Breakell et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Carey v. Breakell et al.?
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 Carey v. Breakell et al. 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.