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.
Eric V. Mitchel II v. Stellantis Financial Services
E.D. Virginia · Sep 18, 2025
VA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Smith v. Stellantis Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00512 (E.D. Va. 2018)"; the Court found the cited case number actually corresponds to Miller v. General District Court of the City of Richmond, indicating an inaccurate/fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning. "The Court respectfully proposes that the time may be near for an exception to the Erickson liberal-construction rule, where a pro se individual relies on AI to draft pleadings and thus blurs the line between what is a good faith pro se assertion of an actionable claim and what is a computer-generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources."
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Virginia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Smith v. Stellantis Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00512 (E.D. Va. 2018)"; the Court found the cited case number actually corresponds to Miller v. General District Court of the City of Richmond, indicating an inaccurate/fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning. "The Court respectfully proposes that the time may be near for an exception to the Erickson liberal-construction rule, where a pro se individual relies on AI to draft pleadings and thus blurs the line between what is a good faith pro se assertion of an actionable claim and what is a computer-generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources."
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Virginia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
VirginiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Virginia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateSep 18, 2025
AI
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
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Smith v. Stellantis Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00512 (E.D. Va. 2018)"; the Court found the cited case number actually corresponds to Miller v. General District Court of the City of Richmond, indicating an inaccurate/fabricated citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Garcia v. Stellantis Fin. Servs., 4:21-cv-00354 (W.D. Tex. 2021)"; the Court found no Westlaw result for that citation and noted the actual W.D. Tex. 4:21-cv-354 corresponds to Franklin v. Apple Inc., 569 F. Supp. 3d 465 (W.D. Tex. 2021).
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Court observed that nearly every citation listed under Plaintiff's sub-heading "VII. Established Pattern of Unfair Practices by Stellantis" appears incorrect or fabricated, suggesting multiple AI-generated hallucinated authorities.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Eric V. Mitchel II v. Stellantis Financial Services?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Smith v. Stellantis Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00512 (E.D. Va. 2018)"; the Court found the cited case number actually corresponds to Miller v. General District Court of the City of Richmond, indicating an inaccurate/fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning. "The Court respectfully proposes that the time may be near for an exception to the Erickson liberal-construction rule, where a pro se individual relies on AI to draft pleadings and thus blurs the line between what is a good faith pro se assertion of an actionable claim and what is a computer-generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources."
- Why does Eric V. Mitchel II v. Stellantis Financial Services matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Virginia, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Eric V. Mitchel II v. Stellantis Financial Services?
- 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 Eric V. Mitchel II v. Stellantis Financial Services 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.