Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig

CA California (6d) · Apr 22, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The California Court of Appeal identified that the pro se appellant's brief contained numerous nonexistent cases and incorrect citations. While the court noted this conduct could justify dismissing the appeal as frivolous, it ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment based on the appellant's failure to provide an adequate record and failure to support her arguments with reasoned legal authority.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig, the CA California (6d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. The source record does not state a separate procedural consequence. The entry is dated 2026-04-22. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA California (6d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateApr 22, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the appellant's challenges to spousal support, property division, and sanctions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The opinion notes the appellant cited nonexistent cases, implying the use of AI tools.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a trial court judgment in a marital dissolution action, following a court trial held between July 2022 and July 2024.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
Show 1 additional discrepancies
  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig?
The California Court of Appeal identified that the pro se appellant's brief contained numerous nonexistent cases and incorrect citations. While the court noted this conduct could justify dismissing the appeal as frivolous, it ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment based on the appellant's failure to provide an adequate record and failure to support her arguments with reasoned legal authority.
Why does In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig 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.