Evans v. Robertson (4)
E.D. Michigan · Jul 21, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Michigan
- Record ID
- evans-v-robertson-4-2026-07-21
- Observed outcome
- Briefs (both sides) struck
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cites Mitan v. Campbell as supporting that republication can extend accrual; the court notes Mitan holds the opposite (accrual is not extended by republication). Outcome: Briefs (both sides) struck. The Court found both Plaintiff's and Defendant's filings contained factitious citations and misrepresentations of precedent despite prior orders requiring verification; examples include a misstatement of Mitan v. Campbell and improper uses of Delay and Everett. The Court struck the objections and related filings, reiterated prior sanctions (imposed Nov. 20, 2025), and warned that further violations may incur additional sanctions.…
The record concerns whether cited material supported the proposition attributed to it. The tracked outcome is Briefs (both sides) struck; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Briefs (both sides) struck in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Briefs (both sides) struck
reason.com
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
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.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Secondary Source Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.