Davis v. Tressler and York
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.
CA Indiana · Oct 14, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The matter is recorded in CA Indiana on 2026-10-14 and concerns pro se and fake citations. The tracked outcome is Adverse Costs Order; consult the linked source for the complete record.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Adverse Costs Order. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in CA Indiana. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The matter is recorded in CA Indiana on 2026-10-14 and concerns pro se and fake citations. The tracked outcome is Adverse Costs Order; consult the linked source for the complete record.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in CA Indiana. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Adverse Costs Order
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
13 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The court stated that this real case concerned inheritance tax and did not address testamentary capacity, contrary to Davis’s use of it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation, making the authority fabricated.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The court found that the cited authorities existed but did not support Davis’s contentions.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The court found that the cited authority existed but did not support Davis’s contentions.
Show 5 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The court found that the cited authority existed but did not support Davis’s contentions.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The court found that the cited authority existed but did not support Davis’s contentions.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The court found that Indiana Code section 29-1-7-17 did not support Davis’s contention for which it was cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Davis v. Tressler and York?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that no case existed at the cited citation. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The matter is recorded in CA Indiana on 2026-10-14 and concerns pro se and fake citations. The tracked outcome is Adverse Costs Order; consult the linked source for the complete record.
- Why does Davis v. Tressler and York matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Adverse Costs Order in CA Indiana. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Davis v. Tressler and York?
- 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 Davis v. Tressler and York 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.
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.