HomeCasesGregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington

CA Washington (d3) · Mar 17, 2026

WA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Washington (d3), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Washington (d3), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Washington (d3)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 17, 2026

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Richmonds cited Osborn v. Mason County for a proposition about mandatory plumbing inspections, but the case concerns a duty to warn and does not contain the stated plumbing/inspection holding; court held the citation does not support the proposition.
False Quotes: Case Law | Richmonds quoted language attributed to Bailey v. Town of Forks that does not appear in that opinion; court noted the quoted language is not in Bailey.
False Quotes: Case Law | Richmonds attributed a municipal-immunity-related quotation to Phillips v. King County that the court found does not appear in that case.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited King County v. Vincent (167 Wn.2d 671 (2009)), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited Carlyle v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 155 Wn. App. 895, 231 P.3d 218 (2010), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.
Why does Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Washington (d3), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington?: 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 Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington 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.

Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑KamerathCA Washington · Jun 15, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLCW.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations T.M. v. M.M.CA Indiana · Sep 24, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupCA Washington · Apr 20, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Stance Strong and Kinisha Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC d/b/a Popeyes ChickenCA Illinois (1d) · Apr 15, 2026pro se + fake citations Esterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin NortonCA Washington (d1) · Mar 16, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Operational lesson

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Washington (d3)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 17, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Richmonds cited Osborn v. Mason County for a proposition about mandatory plumbing inspections, but the case concerns a duty to warn and does not contain the stated plumbing/inspection holding; court held the citation does not support the proposition.

False Quotes: Case Law | Richmonds quoted language attributed to Bailey v. Town of Forks that does not appear in that opinion; court noted the quoted language is not in Bailey.

False Quotes: Case Law | Richmonds attributed a municipal-immunity-related quotation to Phillips v. King County that the court found does not appear in that case.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited King County v. Vincent (167 Wn.2d 671 (2009)), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited Carlyle v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 155 Wn. App. 895, 231 P.3d 218 (2010), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Why does Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington?

Which source supports this Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington 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.