HomeCasesDaniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.

E.D. Louisiana · Mar 20, 2026

LA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationscivil rightstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Second of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court noted unusual bullet-point formatting and counsel's failure to read the cited cases. Outcome: Monetary sanction & formal admonishment.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary sanction & formal admonishment; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Require a second attorney to Shepardize every citation before filing; ChatGPT output without verification is automatic Rule 11 exposure.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Require a second attorney to Shepardize every citation before filing; ChatGPT output without verification is automatic Rule 11 exposure.

Record details

LouisianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. Louisiana

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit5th Circuit

DateMar 20, 2026

AI toolChatGPT

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary sanction & formal admonishment

Known amount$1,250

Professional sanctionYes

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Monetary sanction & formal admonishment

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Second of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court noted unusual bullet-point formatting and counsel's failure to read the cited cases.
Fabricated: Case Law | Third of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; Court concluded counsel relied on ChatGPT and did not verify the authority.
Fabricated: Case Law | One of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found it was likely generated by ChatGPT and not checked by counsel.
Fabricated: Case Law | Fourth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was fabricated; the Court treated it as an AI-generated hallucination that went unchecked.
Fabricated: Case Law | Fifth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; counsel admitted using ChatGPT and failing to confirm the citations' validity.
Fabricated: Case Law | Sixth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court emphasized attorneys must read and verify every case they cite.
Fabricated: Case Law | Seventh of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found objective Rule 11 violation based on failure to inquire.
Fabricated: Case Law | Eighth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was fabricated; Court noted supervisors bore responsibility for not noticing the hallucinations.

Show 1 additional discrepancies

Fabricated: Case Law | Ninth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; Court determined the citations were likely produced by ChatGPT and unverified by counsel.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Second of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court noted unusual bullet-point formatting and counsel's failure to read the cited cases. Outcome: Monetary sanction & formal admonishment.
Why does Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al. matter for legal AI risk?: Require a second attorney to Shepardize every citation before filing; ChatGPT output without verification is automatic Rule 11 exposure.
What does the public record establish about Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.?: 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 Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al. 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.

Woodward Harbor L.L.C., et al. v. City of MandevilleE.D. Louisiana · Mar 5, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Robenson Lafontant v. Coolidge-CLK St. GermaineE.D. Louisiana · Oct 2, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Lee v. R&R Home Care, Inc.E.D. Louisiana · Aug 28, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Woody Nora v. M & A Transport, Inc., et al.E.D. Louisiana · Aug 13, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Herr v. Elos Environmental, LLCE.D. Louisiana · Aug 11, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Kattom v. BondiW.D. Louisiana · Mar 6, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + civil rights

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

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Require a second attorney to Shepardize every citation before filing; ChatGPT output without verification is automatic Rule 11 exposure.

Record details

LouisianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. Louisiana

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit5th Circuit

DateMar 20, 2026

AI toolChatGPT

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeMonetary sanction & formal admonishment

Known amount$1,250

Professional sanctionYes

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Second of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court noted unusual bullet-point formatting and counsel's failure to read the cited cases.

Fabricated: Case Law | Third of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; Court concluded counsel relied on ChatGPT and did not verify the authority.

Fabricated: Case Law | One of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found it was likely generated by ChatGPT and not checked by counsel.

Fabricated: Case Law | Fourth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was fabricated; the Court treated it as an AI-generated hallucination that went unchecked.

Fabricated: Case Law | Fifth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; counsel admitted using ChatGPT and failing to confirm the citations' validity.

Fabricated: Case Law | Sixth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was nonexistent; Court emphasized attorneys must read and verify every case they cite.

Fabricated: Case Law | Seventh of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist as cited; Court found objective Rule 11 violation based on failure to inquire.

Fabricated: Case Law | Eighth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum was fabricated; Court noted supervisors bore responsibility for not noticing the hallucinations.

Show 1 additional discrepancies

Fabricated: Case Law | Ninth of nine case citations in Defendants' memorandum did not exist; Court determined the citations were likely produced by ChatGPT and unverified by counsel.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.?

Why does Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al. matter for legal AI risk?

Require a second attorney to Shepardize every citation before filing; ChatGPT output without verification is automatic Rule 11 exposure.

What does the public record establish about Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.?

Which source supports this Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al. 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.