Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC
W.D. Texas · Feb 26, 2026
TX / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
A magistrate judge's report identified a party's citation to appellate authority as stating the opposite of what the cited decision held and described the filing as materially misrepresenting that precedent while addressing the parties' summary-judgment arguments.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law || False Quotes: Case Law | The plaintiffs' briefing allegedly 'manufacture[d] or cite[d] hallucinated quotations' attributed to the Fifth Circuit's decision in Ash v. Flowers Foods, Inc.; the court notes the quoted language does not appear in Ash.
- Why it matters now
- Pull every quote from the reporter text before filing — hallucinated Fifth Circuit quotes surface fast in opposition.
Why this matter is tracked
A magistrate judge's report identified a party's citation to appellate authority as stating the opposite of what the cited decision held and described the filing as materially misrepresenting that precedent while addressing the parties' summary-judgment arguments.
Operational lesson
Pull every quote from the reporter text before filing — hallucinated Fifth Circuit quotes surface fast in opposition.
Record details
TexasSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Texas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateFeb 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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
- False Quotes: Case Law | The plaintiffs' briefing allegedly 'manufacture[d] or cite[d] hallucinated quotations' attributed to the Fifth Circuit's decision in Ash v. Flowers Foods, Inc.; the court notes the quoted language does not appear in Ash.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC?
- A magistrate judge's report identified a party's citation to appellate authority as stating the opposite of what the cited decision held and described the filing as materially misrepresenting that precedent while addressing the parties' summary-judgment arguments.
- Why does David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- Pull every quote from the reporter text before filing — hallucinated Fifth Circuit quotes surface fast in opposition.
- What does the public record establish about David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC?
- 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 Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLC 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.