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: Valsartan
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: Valsartan

D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2025

NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification. Outcome: Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied. The Special Master found that Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources produced by an AI tool without adequate verification. The court concluded the opinions themselves were otherwise reliable and denied exclusion, while allowing cross-examination and noting that an award of costs might be appropriate.

Why the court cared
The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now
Vet expert reports for AI-generated citations before endorsing them; cross-examination exposure alone can sink credibility.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification. Outcome: Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied. The Special Master found that Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources produced by an AI tool without adequate verification. The court concluded the opinions themselves were otherwise reliable and denied exclusion, while allowing cross-examination and noting that an award of costs might be appropriate.

Operational lesson

Vet expert reports for AI-generated citations before endorsing them; cross-examination exposure alone can sink credibility.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
Explore NJOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. New Jersey
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateSep 3, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeExpert
OutcomeMotion to exclude Expert opinions denied
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

Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Valsartan?
Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification. Outcome: Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied. The Special Master found that Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources produced by an AI tool without adequate verification. The court concluded the opinions themselves were otherwise reliable and denied exclusion, while allowing cross-examination and noting that an award of costs might be appropriate.
Why does In re: Valsartan matter for legal AI risk?
Vet expert reports for AI-generated citations before endorsing them; cross-examination exposure alone can sink credibility.
What does the public record establish about In re: Valsartan?
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: Valsartan 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.

Santos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026same court · fake citations + trialKurelko v. BallardD. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2026same court · fake citations + trialPeterkin et al v. McIntyre et alD. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026same court · fake citations + trialK.W. v. Ringwood Board of EducationD. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + trialZena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026same court · fake citations + trialBaker v. Rastelli Foods LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2026same court · fake citations + trial