AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 1, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 31, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesFairrow v. Easten
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Fairrow v. Easten

CA Arizona · Aug 26, 2026

AZ / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamilyNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Napp v. Napp' at the provided citation, which the court found did not exist; court suggested the intended authority was Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74 (App. 2007).

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Napp v. Napp' at the provided citation, which the court found did not exist; court suggested the intended authority was Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74 (App. 2007).

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Arizona
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateAug 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Napp v. Napp' at the provided citation, which the court found did not exist; court suggested the intended authority was Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74 (App. 2007).
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on Appels-Meehan v. Appels, 167 Ariz. 182 (App. 1991), but the court noted that case did not address trial attorney fee awards and was inapplicable.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Fairrow v. Easten?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Napp v. Napp' at the provided citation, which the court found did not exist; court suggested the intended authority was Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74 (App. 2007).
Why does Fairrow v. Easten matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Fairrow v. Easten?
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 Fairrow v. Easten 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.

In re the Matter of: Abius Rosas CarreonCA Arizona · Feb 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsArrieta v. CervantesCA Arizona · Jul 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsIn the Matter of the Estate of KuerschnerCA Arizona · Mar 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsVolesky v. Department of Child SafetyCA Arizona · Jan 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPineda v. CamposCA Arizona · Aug 7, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityEstate of ClaxtonCA Arizona · May 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations