AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 3, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 29, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesDanielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit
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

Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit

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

D. Colorado · Jul 29, 2026

CO / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityOrdered To Show Cause
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). Outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Order to Show Cause. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to Show Cause in D. Colorado. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). Outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to Show Cause in D. Colorado. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
Explore COOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Colorado
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateJul 29, 2026
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOrder to Show Cause
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

Order to Show Cause

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the authority could not be located and does not exist (AI-generated hallucination).
  8. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misattributed or inaccurately quoted language from cited cases and misrepresented associated legal concepts; Court noted these defects and Plaintiff withdrew reliance.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this authority in her response; Court determined the case does not exist (AI-generated hallucination). Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Why does Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to Show Cause in D. Colorado. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit?
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 Danielle Maloit v. Frank Daniel Maloit 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.

Miller v. Colorado Department of RevenueD. Colorado · Sep 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsY.S. v. John Doe, et al.D. Colorado · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsLabonte v. Bokf, et al.D. Colorado · Feb 10, 2026same court · pro se + fabricated quotesY.S. v. John Doe et al.D. Colorado · Nov 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsNonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (1)D. Colorado · Oct 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsMark Khoury v Nira KooijSupreme Court of Queensland · Sep 3, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

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.

Before the next filing goes out, review the workflow behind it.

These records show where AI-assisted filings went wrong. AI Vortex works with law firms and legal teams on one AI-assisted workflow at a time: who reviews the output, who signs, and what source trail it leaves. Operations design, not legal advice.

Review a workflow