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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY
CA Washington · Mar 3, 2026
WA / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityother
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Stoler, 113 Wn. App. 104 (2002)'; court found this citation incorrect and corresponding to State v. Neely, 113 Wn. App. 100 (a criminal case) and thus inapplicable. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Stoler, 113 Wn. App. 104 (2002)'; court found this citation incorrect and corresponding to State v. Neely, 113 Wn. App. 100 (a criminal case) and thus inapplicable. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Estate of Wallace v. Palmer, 103 Wn. App. 1064 (2000)', which the court noted does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Powers, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1006 (1994)', which the court found does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Ga. 610, 652 S.E.2d 546 (2007)', which the court indicated does not appear to exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Griffith, 327 P.3d 612 (Colo. 2014)', which the court determined does not appear to exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Perez v. Pappas, 98 Wn.2d 835, 659 P.2d 475 (1983)', which the court found inapplicable to the estate/TEDRA issues raised.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Washington, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Stoler, 113 Wn. App. 104 (2002)'; court found this citation incorrect and corresponding to State v. Neely, 113 Wn. App. 100 (a criminal case) and thus inapplicable. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Washington, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
Record details
WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Washington
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 3, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAdverse Costs Order
Known amount$1
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
Adverse Costs Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Stoler, 113 Wn. App. 104 (2002)'; court found this citation incorrect and corresponding to State v. Neely, 113 Wn. App. 100 (a criminal case) and thus inapplicable.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Estate of Wallace v. Palmer, 103 Wn. App. 1064 (2000)', which the court noted does not appear to exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Powers, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1006 (1994)', which the court found does not appear to exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Ga. 610, 652 S.E.2d 546 (2007)', which the court indicated does not appear to exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Griffith, 327 P.3d 612 (Colo. 2014)', which the court determined does not appear to exist.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Perez v. Pappas, 98 Wn.2d 835, 659 P.2d 475 (1983)', which the court found inapplicable to the estate/TEDRA issues raised.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited 'In re Estate of Stoler, 113 Wn. App. 104 (2002)'; court found this citation incorrect and corresponding to State v. Neely, 113 Wn. App. 100 (a criminal case) and thus inapplicable. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
- Why does In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Washington, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
- What does the public record establish about In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this In the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREY 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.