AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesChristopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Christopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus

CA Florida (2d) · May 13, 2026

FL / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after finding that his appellate briefs contained fabricated case citations and misquoted legal authorities, which the court attributed to the apparent use of generative artificial intelligence.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Briefs cited numerous non-existent cases; court found multiple fabricated citations..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In Christopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus, the CA Florida (2d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that briefs cited numerous non-existent cases; court found multiple fabricated citations. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-05-13. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

FloridaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore FLOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Florida (2d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit11th Circuit
DateMay 13, 2026
GE
AI toolgenerative artificial intelligence
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint and issued a formal warning to the appellant regarding the accuracy of future filings.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court explicitly referenced the appellant's apparent use of generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a final order dismissing a complaint with prejudice; the court affirmed the dismissal and issued a warning regarding filing accuracy.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Briefs cited numerous non-existent cases; court found multiple fabricated citations.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Briefs frequently quoted case law for propositions that do not appear in the cited cases (misquotations/misrepresentations).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Christopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus?
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after finding that his appellate briefs contained fabricated case citations and misquoted legal authorities, which the court attributed to the apparent use of generative artificial intelligence.
Why does Christopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about Christopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this Christopher Gleason v. Julie Marcus 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.

Cynthia Hulse-Gibson v. Charlie HulseCA Florida (2d) · Jul 8, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesCharles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.M.D. Florida · Oct 15, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsRyan-Michael Jarvis v. County of Teton Wyoming10th Cir. CA · Apr 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Rose Lannquist Gouldy v. Timothy M. Chiasson, et al.CA Florida (4d) · Jul 22, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsJaime Alexander Davidson v. Nayeli Nadir Chang-WarnerCA Florida (6d) · Jun 26, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsEclectic Synergy, LLC v. SeredinCA Florida (4d) · May 27, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotes