Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1H6D8SWGenerated August 5, 2026Evidence checked Aug 5, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Carey v. Breakell et al.

D. Utah · Jul 30, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
D. Utah
Record ID
carey-v-breakell-et-al-2026-07-30
Observed outcome
None Adjudicated
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Tort
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.