AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 23, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn re the Marriage of Kira Lindsay and Jamie Alexander Dillon
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. 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 the Marriage of Kira Lindsay and Jamie Alexander Dillon

CA California · Aug 19, 2026

CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesfamilyMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed a nonexistent quotation/legal proposition to Wilkison (101 Cal.App.4th 822); court found the attribution inaccurate and disregarded the argument relying on it. Outcome: Costs Denied.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Costs Denied. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Costs Denied in CA California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed a nonexistent quotation/legal proposition to Wilkison (101 Cal.App.4th 822); court found the attribution inaccurate and disregarded the argument relying on it. Outcome: Costs Denied.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Costs Denied in CA California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateAug 19, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCosts Denied
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Costs Denied

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed a nonexistent quotation/legal proposition to Wilkison (101 Cal.App.4th 822); court found the attribution inaccurate and disregarded the argument relying on it.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed a nonexistent quotation/legal proposition to Brown v. Grimes (192 Cal.App.4th 265); court found the attribution inaccurate and disregarded the argument relying on it.
  3. False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed a nonexistent quotation/legal proposition to In re Marriage of Iberti (55 Cal.App.4th 1434); court found the attribution inaccurate and disregarded the argument relying on it.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re the Marriage of Kira Lindsay and Jamie Alexander Dillon?
False Quotes: Case Law | Respondent attributed a nonexistent quotation/legal proposition to Wilkison (101 Cal.App.4th 822); court found the attribution inaccurate and disregarded the argument relying on it. Outcome: Costs Denied.
Why does In re the Marriage of Kira Lindsay and Jamie Alexander Dillon matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Costs Denied in CA California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about In re the Marriage of Kira Lindsay and Jamie Alexander Dillon?
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 the Marriage of Kira Lindsay and Jamie Alexander Dillon 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.

Samuel K. v. Winsley FociaCA California · Feb 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHowell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-RotaCA California · Dec 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsAlejandro Rios v. Puente Hills FordCA California · Feb 17, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Christina BuenzliCA California · Dec 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsKingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi SolimanCA California · Dec 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsIn re the Marriage of D.X. and S.P.CA California · Sep 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations