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.
Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. Gutierrez
CA Florida (3d) · Dec 4, 2024
FL / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesother
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's 'Augmented Appendix Sections' cited numerous Florida cases that do not exist ('phantom case law'); appellee Enrique Gutierrez filed a notice listing these non-existent authorities. Outcome: Appeals dismissed as sanction; Appellant barred from future pro se filings in related probate matters without attorney signature.
- Why the court cared
- The Court held that Gutierrez’s submission of fictitious legal authorities and failure to respond to the show cause order constituted an abuse of process. It emphasized that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules as attorneys and referenced prior sanctions cases involving AI hallucinations
- Why it matters now
- Pro-se filer; log as volume data point.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's 'Augmented Appendix Sections' cited numerous Florida cases that do not exist ('phantom case law'); appellee Enrique Gutierrez filed a notice listing these non-existent authorities. Outcome: Appeals dismissed as sanction; Appellant barred from future pro se filings in related probate matters without attorney signature.
AI Use
The court did not specify how the hallucinated material was generated but described the bulk of appellant’s cited cases as “phantom case law.”
Hallucination Details
The court identified that the “Augmented Appendix Sections” attached to each brief consisted of numerous nonexistent Florida cases. Some real cases were cited, but quotes attributed to them were fabricated.
Ruling/Sanction
Dismissal of both consolidated appeals as a sanction. Bar on further pro se filings in the underlying probate actions without review and signature of a Florida-barred attorney. Clerk directed to reject noncompliant future filings
Key Judicial Reasoning
The Court held that Gutierrez’s submission of fictitious legal authorities and failure to respond to the show cause order constituted an abuse of process. It emphasized that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules as attorneys and referenced prior sanctions cases involving AI hallucinations.
Operational lesson
Pro-se filer; log as volume data point.
Record details
FloridaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Florida (3d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit11th Circuit
DateDec 4, 2024
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAppeals dismissed as sanction; Appellant barred from future pro se filings in related probate matters without attorney signature
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
Appeals dismissed as sanction; Appellant barred from future pro se filings in related probate matters without attorney signature
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: Case Law | Appellant's 'Augmented Appendix Sections' cited numerous Florida cases that do not exist ('phantom case law'); appellee Enrique Gutierrez filed a notice listing these non-existent authorities.
- False Quotes: Case Law | For the few correctly cited cases, the quotations attributed to them are not in the opinions, per the court's review.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. Gutierrez?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's 'Augmented Appendix Sections' cited numerous Florida cases that do not exist ('phantom case law'); appellee Enrique Gutierrez filed a notice listing these non-existent authorities. Outcome: Appeals dismissed as sanction; Appellant barred from future pro se filings in related probate matters without attorney signature.
- Why does Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. Gutierrez matter for legal AI risk?
- Pro-se filer; log as volume data point.
- What does the public record establish about Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. Gutierrez?
- 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 Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. Gutierrez 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.