Which source supports this In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski summary?

The recorded source is reason.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesIn re Scott Mitchell Obeginski

Evidence review: secondary source only. Only case-specific secondary coverage was accessible. It provides context, not independent proof of the underlying ruling.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. 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 Scott Mitchell Obeginski

CA Texas (9th) · Mar 12, 2026

TX / state Editorial impact: low fake citations appellate None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Relator repeatedly cited fictitious case authorities in filings; trial court found the citations were fabricated and imposed sanctions requiring future filings to include copies of cited authorities highlighted. Outcome: Order to attach copies of cited authorities affirmed.

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 attach copies of cited authorities affirmed; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Expect courts to impose forward-looking filing burdens (attach highlighted source copies) when AI fabrications are uncovered.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Expect courts to impose forward-looking filing burdens (attach highlighted source copies) when AI fabrications are uncovered.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Texas (9th)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit5th Circuit

DateMar 12, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeOrder to attach copies of cited authorities affirmed

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 attach copies of cited authorities affirmed

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Relator repeatedly cited fictitious case authorities in filings; trial court found the citations were fabricated and imposed sanctions requiring future filings to include copies of cited authorities highlighted.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski?: Fabricated: Case Law | Relator repeatedly cited fictitious case authorities in filings; trial court found the citations were fabricated and imposed sanctions requiring future filings to include copies of cited authorities highlighted. Outcome: Order to attach copies of cited authorities affirmed.
Why does In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski matter for legal AI risk?: Expect courts to impose forward-looking filing burdens (attach highlighted source copies) when AI fabrications are uncovered.
What does the public record establish about In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski summary?: The recorded source is reason.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Laura Becerra (as Next Friend of J.C.)CA Texas · Aug 5, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + appellate In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., ChildrenCA Texas · Jul 30, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + appellate In the Interest of S.M.T. and S.J.T., ChildrenCA Texas · Jul 30, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + appellate In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C., ChildrenCA Texas · Jul 9, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + appellate Paris v. ParisCA Texas · Jun 25, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + appellate Shaddai Harris v. Nadia Lyotard and Mitchell SadlerCA Texas · Jun 12, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + appellate

Linked evidence record

reason.com

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

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

Evidence-review statussecondary source only

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

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 15, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 11, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA Texas (9th) profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology