HomeCasesGummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao

HC Andhra Pradesh · Jan 25, 2026

IndiaEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer. || Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order referred to 'Subramani v. M.Natarajan ((2013) 14 SCC 95)', which verification could not locate; the Judicial Officer reported the citation was AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Chidambaram PIllai v. SAL Ramasamy (1071 (2) SCC 68)', which could not be traced and was admitted to be AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Lakshmi Devi v. K.Prabha ((2006) 5 SCC 551)', which the Judicial Officer could not verify and reported as AI-generated.
Why it matters now: Judges using AI to draft orders is now appellate-reversible error; never let AI generate reasoning or authority in judicial work product.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer.

Operational lesson

Judges using AI to draft orders is now appellate-reversible error; never let AI generate reasoning or authority in judicial work product.

Record details

CourtHC Andhra Pradesh

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJan 25, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeJudge

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer.
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order referred to 'Subramani v. M.Natarajan ((2013) 14 SCC 95)', which verification could not locate; the Judicial Officer reported the citation was AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Chidambaram PIllai v. SAL Ramasamy (1071 (2) SCC 68)', which could not be traced and was admitted to be AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Lakshmi Devi v. K.Prabha ((2006) 5 SCC 551)', which the Judicial Officer could not verify and reported as AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao?: Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer.
Why does Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao matter for legal AI risk?: Judges using AI to draft orders is now appellate-reversible error; never let AI generate reasoning or authority in judicial work product.
What does the public record establish about Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao 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.

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.D. Nevada · Jul 13, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Bailey v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.W.D. Tennessee · Jun 8, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Mary McGreevy v. Adam WitkinSC Oregon · Jun 4, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)D. Delaware · May 27, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (2)N.D. Mississippi · May 7, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified

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

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer.

Operational lesson

Judges using AI to draft orders is now appellate-reversible error; never let AI generate reasoning or authority in judicial work product.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer.

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order referred to 'Subramani v. M.Natarajan ((2013) 14 SCC 95)', which verification could not locate; the Judicial Officer reported the citation was AI-generated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Chidambaram PIllai v. SAL Ramasamy (1071 (2) SCC 68)', which could not be traced and was admitted to be AI-generated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Lakshmi Devi v. K.Prabha ((2006) 5 SCC 551)', which the Judicial Officer could not verify and reported as AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao?

Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court's order cited 'Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)', which could not be located and was found to have been produced by the AI tool used by the Judicial Officer.

Why does Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao matter for legal AI risk?

Judges using AI to draft orders is now appellate-reversible error; never let AI generate reasoning or authority in judicial work product.

What does the public record establish about Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao?

Which source supports this Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao 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.