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 W.B.
CA California (5d) · Apr 29, 2026
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefamilyappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
The appellate court warned a parent about citing authority that did not support the propositions advanced and cautioned that generative AI can produce incorrect information or hallucinated citations, particularly when used in filings concerning sensitive family matters.
- Why the court cared
- The linked record identifies pro se and family and records Warning. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and family involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA California (5d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
The appellate court warned a parent about citing authority that did not support the propositions advanced and cautioned that generative AI can produce incorrect information or hallucinated citations, particularly when used in filings concerning sensitive family matters.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and family involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA California (5d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California (5d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateApr 29, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re W.B.?
- The appellate court warned a parent about citing authority that did not support the propositions advanced and cautioned that generative AI can produce incorrect information or hallucinated citations, particularly when used in filings concerning sensitive family matters.
- Why does In re W.B. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and family involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA California (5d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about In re W.B.?
- 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 W.B. 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.