HomeCasesDavid J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson

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

David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson

CA New Mexico · Nov 12, 2025

NM / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's authorities cited incorrect appellate reporters or otherwise mis-cited case law; the court's review confirmed the citations were inaccurate and complicated appellate review. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's authorities cited incorrect appellate reporters or otherwise mis-cited case law; the court's review confirmed the citations were inaccurate and complicated appellate review. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed direct quotations to cited authorities that do not contain those quotations; the court found the quoted language absent from the cited sources.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

New MexicoSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA New Mexico

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit10th Circuit

DateNov 12, 2025

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

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's authorities cited incorrect appellate reporters or otherwise mis-cited case law; the court's review confirmed the citations were inaccurate and complicated appellate review.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed direct quotations to cited authorities that do not contain those quotations; the court found the quoted language absent from the cited sources.

Questions this record answers

What happened in David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's authorities cited incorrect appellate reporters or otherwise mis-cited case law; the court's review confirmed the citations were inaccurate and complicated appellate review. Outcome: Warning.
Why does David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson?: 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 David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson 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.

Wagner v. RobinsonCA New Mexico · Jun 29, 2026same court · pro se + appellate P-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. James K. Bernard Jr.CA Illinois · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026pro se + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Christian Lavell Jennings v. Vandergriff HondaCA Texas · May 28, 2026pro se + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One10th Cir. CA · Feb 6, 2026pro se + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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 CA New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

New MexicoSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA New Mexico

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit10th Circuit

DateNov 12, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed direct quotations to cited authorities that do not contain those quotations; the court found the quoted language absent from the cited sources.

Questions this record answers

What happened in David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson?

Why does David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Warning.

What does the public record establish about David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson?

Which source supports this David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson 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.