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 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re: Marrett
D. Massachusetts · Feb 19, 2026
MA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
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
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.
- 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.
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.