Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesEvans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3)
Evidence review: secondary source only. Only case-specific secondary coverage was accessible. It provides context, not independent proof of the underlying ruling.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3)

E.D. Michigan · Nov 20, 2025

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Provided a quotation attributed to Walden v. Fiore that does not appear in the opinion; court identified it as a false quote. Outcome: Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges. Show Cause Order is here.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | Provided a quotation attributed to Walden v. Fiore that does not appear in the opinion; court identified it as a false quote. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a Michigan Court of Appeals case the court could not locate; treated as a fabricated case citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an Eighth Circuit opinion that does not exist; court determined the citation refers to a different district-court filing. || Fabricated: Case Law | Repeated citation used four times that the court could not find; treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Citation identified by the court as not accurately representing an existing Sixth Circuit opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an E.D. Mich. opinion that does not exist and quoted language not found in any located opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a district-court opinion with a reporter citation that corresponds to a different case; court found the cited case does not exist as stated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited multiple opinions and entries that the court could not locate and deemed factitious (repeatedly used in the brief). || Fabricated: Case Law | Citation the court could not locate and treated as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a Ninth Circuit opinion that does not exist under the given citation; court identified it as fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted Seay v. TVA about 'sur-replies are not permitted' but the court found the quotation does not appear in the opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward that the court found does not exist in the opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co. that the court found to be fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted Ready Transp. as stating that a stricken document 'ceases to exist for any purpose,' which the court found does not appear in that opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited a real Sixth Circuit case but relied on a proposition the opinion does not support; court characterized this as a misrepresentation of the authority.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges.

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Provided a quotation attributed to Walden v. Fiore that does not appear in the opinion; court identified it as a false quote. Outcome: Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges. Show Cause Order is here.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateNov 20, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMultiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges
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

Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

15 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Provided a quotation attributed to Walden v. Fiore that does not appear in the opinion; court identified it as a false quote.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a Michigan Court of Appeals case the court could not locate; treated as a fabricated case citation.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an Eighth Circuit opinion that does not exist; court determined the citation refers to a different district-court filing.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Repeated citation used four times that the court could not find; treated as fabricated.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Citation identified by the court as not accurately representing an existing Sixth Circuit opinion.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an E.D. Mich. opinion that does not exist and quoted language not found in any located opinion.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a district-court opinion with a reporter citation that corresponds to a different case; court found the cited case does not exist as stated.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited multiple opinions and entries that the court could not locate and deemed factitious (repeatedly used in the brief).
Show 7 additional discrepancies
  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Citation the court could not locate and treated as fabricated.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a Ninth Circuit opinion that does not exist under the given citation; court identified it as fabricated.
  3. False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted Seay v. TVA about 'sur-replies are not permitted' but the court found the quotation does not appear in the opinion.
  4. False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward that the court found does not exist in the opinion.
  5. False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co. that the court found to be fabricated.
  6. False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted Ready Transp. as stating that a stricken document 'ceases to exist for any purpose,' which the court found does not appear in that opinion.
  7. Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited a real Sixth Circuit case but relied on a proposition the opinion does not support; court characterized this as a misrepresentation of the authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3)?
False Quotes: Case Law | Provided a quotation attributed to Walden v. Fiore that does not appear in the opinion; court identified it as a false quote. Outcome: Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges. Show Cause Order is here.
Why does Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3) matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges.
What does the public record establish about Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3)?
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 Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3) summary?
The recorded source is reason.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked 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.