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.
In re Garcia-Martz
N.D. Indiana (Bankruptcy) · Jun 10, 2026
IN / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritybankruptcy
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee relied on In re Sweports (7th Cir.) as 'binding' to require return of funds to debtor; court explained Sweports was a Chapter 11 jurisdictional case and inapplicable to these Chapter 13 facts. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to Show Cause; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in N.D. Indiana (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee relied on In re Sweports (7th Cir.) as 'binding' to require return of funds to debtor; court explained Sweports was a Chapter 11 jurisdictional case and inapplicable to these Chapter 13 facts. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in N.D. Indiana (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
IndianaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. Indiana (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateJun 10, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to Show Cause
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
Order to Show Cause
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee relied on In re Sweports (7th Cir.) as 'binding' to require return of funds to debtor; court explained Sweports was a Chapter 11 jurisdictional case and inapplicable to these Chapter 13 facts.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee cited Marshall v. Johnson and applied it incorrectly to argue trustees could deduct fees here; court found Marshall inapplicable and mischaracterized its holding.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Trustee included altered or misleading quotations from authority without indicating alterations; court flagged misleading/modified quotations as one of the brief's deficiencies.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Trustee cited a Bankruptcy Rule that does not exist (non-existent rule identified in Figure 3 of the decision); court listed this as a fabricated legal norm in the brief.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re Garcia-Martz?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee relied on In re Sweports (7th Cir.) as 'binding' to require return of funds to debtor; court explained Sweports was a Chapter 11 jurisdictional case and inapplicable to these Chapter 13 facts. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why does In re Garcia-Martz matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in N.D. Indiana (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about In re Garcia-Martz?
- 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 In re Garcia-Martz 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.