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.
Ford v. Sherwin-Williams
D. Kansas · Mar 31, 2026
KS / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesemployment
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Clark v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, No. 21-2223-EFM, 2021 WL 4129476 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2021)', but the Westlaw number and case number pointed to unrelated authority; court concluded the citation/quotation was fictitious and likely AI-generated. Outcome: Warning. The district court identified fabricated citations and quotations in the pro se plaintiff's filings (e.g., a cited Westlaw number and case caption that did not match the cited authority). The court suspected the citations were AI-generated, cautioned the plaintiff, and referenced D. Kan.…
- 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 D. Kansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Clark v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, No. 21-2223-EFM, 2021 WL 4129476 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2021)', but the Westlaw number and case number pointed to unrelated authority; court concluded the citation/quotation was fictitious and likely AI-generated. Outcome: Warning. The district court identified fabricated citations and quotations in the pro se plaintiff's filings (e.g., a cited Westlaw number and case caption that did not match the cited authority). The court suspected the citations were AI-generated, cautioned the plaintiff, and referenced D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01 warning of possible sanctions for fabricated or incorrect legal authority. No sanction was imposed in this Order.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Kansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
KansasSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Kansas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateMar 31, 2026
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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Clark v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, No. 21-2223-EFM, 2021 WL 4129476 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2021)', but the Westlaw number and case number pointed to unrelated authority; court concluded the citation/quotation was fictitious and likely AI-generated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ford v. Sherwin-Williams?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to 'Clark v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, No. 21-2223-EFM, 2021 WL 4129476 (D. Kan. Sept. 9, 2021)', but the Westlaw number and case number pointed to unrelated authority; court concluded the citation/quotation was fictitious and likely AI-generated. Outcome: Warning. The district court identified fabricated citations and quotations in the pro se plaintiff's filings (e.g., a cited Westlaw number and case caption that did not match the cited authority). The court suspected the citations were AI-generated, cautioned the plaintiff, and referenced D. Kan.…
- Why does Ford v. Sherwin-Williams matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Kansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Ford v. Sherwin-Williams?
- 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 Ford v. Sherwin-Williams 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.