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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Cingel v. Ferreri
CA Indiana · Sep 19, 2025
IN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Marriage of Dunston, 989 N.E.2d 830, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)' to support abuse-of-discretion review; court found no such case and reporter citation pointed to unrelated decisions. Outcome: Warning.
- 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
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Marriage of Dunston, 989 N.E.2d 830, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)' to support abuse-of-discretion review; court found no such case and reporter citation pointed to unrelated decisions. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
IndianaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Indiana
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateSep 19, 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
8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Marriage of Dunston, 989 N.E.2d 830, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)' to support abuse-of-discretion review; court found no such case and reporter citation pointed to unrelated decisions.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'McCain v. State, 924 N.E.2d 56, 60 (Ind. 2009)' for a custody proposition; court determined that citation does not exist as given.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on 'Indiana Code § 31-17-2.5-1' as the custody statute; court found no such statutory section (correct statute is 31-17-2-8).
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited and purported to quote 'Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-23(a)'; court noted no such statutory provision exists.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 'Trial Rule 60.1' and 'Trial Rule 60.1(A)' to support procedural requirements for custody modifications; court found no such trial rule.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 'Trial Rule 59(G)' as requiring written orders or hearings on motions to correct error; court explained Rule 59(G) concerns cross errors and was misapplied.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Bowman v. Bowman, 682 N.E.2d 23, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)' for multiple propositions; court observed the correct Bowman citation is different (686 N.E.2d 921) and the cited reporter/pincite pointed to unrelated authority, and the asserted propositions were inaccurate.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on subsections 'Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-1(a)' and '(b)' for notice timing and burden of proof on relocation; court found those subsections were mischaracterized (they address filing location and exceptions) and pointed to the correct provisions (31-17-2.2-3 and 31-17-2.2-5).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cingel v. Ferreri?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Marriage of Dunston, 989 N.E.2d 830, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)' to support abuse-of-discretion review; court found no such case and reporter citation pointed to unrelated decisions. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Cingel v. Ferreri matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Cingel v. Ferreri?
- 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 Cingel v. Ferreri 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.