HomeCasesDana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC

W.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brockmeyer v. May but the authority does not support the proposition or contain the quoted text; court identified it among inaccurate/misused citations. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brockmeyer v. May but the authority does not support the proposition or contain the quoted text; court identified it among inaccurate/misused citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC but the opinion does not contain the text she quotes; court listed it as an inaccurate citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net and allegedly misquoted or misapplied its text; court flagged it as not supporting her proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gurung v. Malhotra but the text cited is not present in that authority; court included it among suspect citations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re LLS Am., LLC but the court found the citation did not support her quoted text and listed it among problematic citations. || Fabricated: Case Law | The opinion contains multiple citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist; Editor's Note preserves these invalid citations as part of the record.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 29, 2026

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

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brockmeyer v. May but the authority does not support the proposition or contain the quoted text; court identified it among inaccurate/misused citations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC but the opinion does not contain the text she quotes; court listed it as an inaccurate citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net and allegedly misquoted or misapplied its text; court flagged it as not supporting her proposition.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gurung v. Malhotra but the text cited is not present in that authority; court included it among suspect citations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re LLS Am., LLC but the court found the citation did not support her quoted text and listed it among problematic citations.
Fabricated: Case Law | The opinion contains multiple citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist; Editor's Note preserves these invalid citations as part of the record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brockmeyer v. May but the authority does not support the proposition or contain the quoted text; court identified it among inaccurate/misused citations. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC 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.

Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (2)W.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Merz v. City of KalamaW.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Valve Corporation v. Rothschild et al.W.D. Washington · Feb 9, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 29, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brockmeyer v. May but the authority does not support the proposition or contain the quoted text; court identified it among inaccurate/misused citations.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC but the opinion does not contain the text she quotes; court listed it as an inaccurate citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. v. Porsche.net and allegedly misquoted or misapplied its text; court flagged it as not supporting her proposition.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gurung v. Malhotra but the text cited is not present in that authority; court included it among suspect citations.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited In re LLS Am., LLC but the court found the citation did not support her quoted text and listed it among problematic citations.

Fabricated: Case Law | The opinion contains multiple citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist; Editor's Note preserves these invalid citations as part of the record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC?

Why does Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.

What does the public record establish about Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC?

Which source supports this Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC 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.