AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn re: Marrett
Evidence review: primary document limited. The primary document was retrieved, but one or more case-level facts could not be tied to a page-located passage. The structured corpus baseline is preserved without upgrading those claims.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

In re: Marrett

D. Massachusetts · Feb 19, 2026

MA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Goguen v. Nason, 419 A.2d 1032 (Me. 1980)', which Westlaw/Lexis searches showed does not exist; the court identified this citation as nonexistent and noted the apparent correct citation in the same reporter is Ridgway v. Prudential Ins. Co., 419 A.2d 1030 (Me. 1980).

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Goguen v. Nason, 419 A.2d 1032 (Me. 1980)', which Westlaw/Lexis searches showed does not exist; the court identified this citation as nonexistent and noted the apparent correct citation in the same reporter is Ridgway v. Prudential Ins. Co., 419 A.2d 1030 (Me. 1980). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted recurring issues in the Debtors' filings of 'mis-quotes and misleading characterizations' of existing authority (general misrepresentation of cited cases/authorities), though the decision does not reproduce a specific false quotation.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Massachusetts, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Goguen v. Nason, 419 A.2d 1032 (Me. 1980)', which Westlaw/Lexis searches showed does not exist; the court identified this citation as nonexistent and noted the apparent correct citation in the same reporter is Ridgway v. Prudential Ins. Co., 419 A.2d 1030 (Me. 1980).

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Massachusetts, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

MassachusettsSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Massachusetts
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 19, 2026
AI
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

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Goguen v. Nason, 419 A.2d 1032 (Me. 1980)', which Westlaw/Lexis searches showed does not exist; the court identified this citation as nonexistent and noted the apparent correct citation in the same reporter is Ridgway v. Prudential Ins. Co., 419 A.2d 1030 (Me. 1980).
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted recurring issues in the Debtors' filings of 'mis-quotes and misleading characterizations' of existing authority (general misrepresentation of cited cases/authorities), though the decision does not reproduce a specific false quotation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Marrett?
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Goguen v. Nason, 419 A.2d 1032 (Me. 1980)', which Westlaw/Lexis searches showed does not exist; the court identified this citation as nonexistent and noted the apparent correct citation in the same reporter is Ridgway v. Prudential Ins. Co., 419 A.2d 1030 (Me. 1980).
Why does In re: Marrett matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Massachusetts, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about In re: Marrett?
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 In re: Marrett 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.

In re: Telexfree Securities LitigationD. Massachusetts · Feb 13, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesTraver v. General Motors Financial Company Inc., et al.D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGregory J. Van Etten v. Stephanie K. Fattman, et al.D. Massachusetts · Mar 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRichard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al.D. Massachusetts · Jun 1, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authoritySouza v. City of FitchburgD. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsIn the matter of MachinskyMassachusetts Land Court · Aug 7, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations