Which source supports this Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche 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.

HomeCasesContreras Ramirez v. Blanche

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

10th Cir. CA · Oct 28, 2026

/ federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority immigration Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The opening brief cited four nonexistent cases. The court identified the citations as fabricated and treated them as violations of the briefing certification requirements. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in 10th Cir. CA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in 10th Cir. CA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

Court10th Cir. CA

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateOct 28, 2026

AI toolNo tool named in source

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

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 | The opening brief cited four nonexistent cases. The court identified the citations as fabricated and treated them as violations of the briefing certification requirements.
Misrepresented: Case Law | The opening brief attributed legal propositions to two real cases that did not stand for those propositions. The court characterized these as misrepresentations of legal authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche?: Fabricated: Case Law | The opening brief cited four nonexistent cases. The court identified the citations as fabricated and treated them as violations of the briefing certification requirements. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in 10th Cir. CA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche?: 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 Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche 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.

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Nov 3, 2026 · Published Nov 3, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Nov 3, 2026; latest tracked decision Oct 29, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open 10th Cir. CA profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, Case Record: Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche (October 28, 2026), Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Nov. 3, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/contreras-ramirez-v-blanche-2026-10-28 (last visited Nov. 3, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, November 3). Case Record: Contreras Ramirez v. Blanche (October 28, 2026). Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved November 3, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/contreras-ramirez-v-blanche-2026-10-28
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/contreras-ramirez-v-blanche-2026-10-28 (accessed 2026-11-03)

Cites the AI Vortex page, not the underlying decision; cite the court's own document for the holding.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.