Grobler v. Kentucky Housing Corporation
CA Kentucky · Oct 2, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Kentucky
- Record ID
- grobler-v-kentucky-housing-corporation-2026-10-02
- Observed outcome
- None Adjudicated
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited a nonexistent Kentucky appellate decision as legal authority. The court stated that a simple Google search would show that the case does not exist. The Court of Appeals identified multiple citations in Grobler’s pro se brief as apparently AI-hallucinated, including three nonexistent Kentucky cases: Hunt v. Smith, 670 S.W.2d 248 (Ky. App. 1984), Bargo v. Bargo, 616 S.W.3d 389 (Ky. App. 2020), and Roberts v. Hensley, 422 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. App. 2013). The court also stated that several citations to real cases did not support the propositions for which they were cited. Treating these errors as a substantive violation of the appellate rules, the court limited review to manifest injustice and affirmed the order. The court separately rejected Grobler’s purported IRS Form 1099-C as plainly unauthenticated and not issued by the IRS, but did not identify that document as an AI hallucination.
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.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Kentucky. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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 document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.