Edward Starski v. Chandler Holderness
CA Colorado · Dec 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Colorado
- Record ID
- edward-starski-v-chandler-holderness-2025-12-18
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the lower court's judgment and issued a warning to the appellant regarding the use of AI-generated hallucinations in court filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued a formal warning to pro se litigant Edward Starski regarding his use of AI-generated hallucinations in appellate filings. The court identified fabricated case law and false quotations but declined to impose monetary or professional sanctions, noting that the appellee had not requested such relief.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'In re Application of Kieta, 573 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 1998)'; the court's independent research found no such decision and labeled it an AI 'hallucination.' || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant provided direct quotations and legal propositions attributed to cited authorities that do not appear in those authorities; court found these improper citations indicative of AI-generated hallucinations.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- False_legal_quotations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a bench trial judgment from the Douglas County District Court; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.