Which source supports this Hack v. Preston et al 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.

HomeCasesHack v. Preston et al

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Hack v. Preston et al

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Jesse Schaefer; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

D. Utah · Aug 7, 2026

UT / federal Editorial impact: low pro se misrepresented authority other trial Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief relied on Hukill but provided an incorrect citation and mischaracterized the Tenth Circuit's analysis; court flagged the misrepresentation and warned about AI hallucinations. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

UtahSingle-state evidence scope

Explore UTOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Utah

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateAug 7, 2026

First seenAug 16, 2026 (in this dataset)

AI toolChatGPT

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT 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.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief relied on Hukill but provided an incorrect citation and mischaracterized the Tenth Circuit's analysis; court flagged the misrepresentation and warned about AI hallucinations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Hack v. Preston et al?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Reply brief relied on Hukill but provided an incorrect citation and mischaracterized the Tenth Circuit's analysis; court flagged the misrepresentation and warned about AI hallucinations. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Hack v. Preston et al matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Hack v. Preston et al?: 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 Hack v. Preston et al 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.

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Nov 14, 2026 · Published Aug 16, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Nov 14, 2026; latest tracked decision Nov 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Utah profile Explore jurisdiction

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

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, Case Record: Hack v. Preston et al (August 7, 2026), Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Nov. 14, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/hack-v-preston-et-al-2026-08-07 (last visited Nov. 14, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, November 14). Case Record: Hack v. Preston et al (August 7, 2026). Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved November 14, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/hack-v-preston-et-al-2026-08-07
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/hack-v-preston-et-al-2026-08-07 (accessed 2026-11-14)

Cites the AI Vortex page, not the underlying decision; cite the court's own document for the holding.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.