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.
Evans et al v. Robertson et al (1)
E.D. Michigan · May 21, 2025
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityother
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Doe cited a nonexistent case, asserting it held that a limited special appearance to challenge a subpoena does not constitute general appearance or jurisdictional consent; the Court found no such case exists and the WL citation corresponds to an unrelated Tenth Circuit decision. Outcome: Warning.
- 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. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Doe cited a nonexistent case, asserting it held that a limited special appearance to challenge a subpoena does not constitute general appearance or jurisdictional consent; the Court found no such case exists and the WL citation corresponds to an unrelated Tenth Circuit decision. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateMay 21, 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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Doe cited a nonexistent case, asserting it held that a limited special appearance to challenge a subpoena does not constitute general appearance or jurisdictional consent; the Court found no such case exists and the WL citation corresponds to an unrelated Tenth Circuit decision.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Doe misrepresented Strike 3 Holdings as holding that courts err by ordering identity disclosure before resolving a motion to quash; the Court noted the case exists but does not mention motions to quash.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Evans et al v. Robertson et al (1)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Doe cited a nonexistent case, asserting it held that a limited special appearance to challenge a subpoena does not constitute general appearance or jurisdictional consent; the Court found no such case exists and the WL citation corresponds to an unrelated Tenth Circuit decision. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Evans et al v. Robertson et al (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Evans et al v. Robertson et al (1)?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is hosted by a court or government source. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Evans et al v. Robertson et al (1) summary?
- The recorded source is govinfo.gov. It is classified as official court or government source; 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.