HomeCasesJustin Spiehs v. Erik Smith

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith

D. Kansas · Apr 29, 2026

KS / federalEditorial impact: lowfabricated quotescivil rightstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff’s brief contained quotations attributed to three cited cases that do not appear in those opinions; the court confirmed the quotes were absent and suspected AI generation. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether quotations and pincites accurately matched the cited source. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fabricated quotes and civil rights involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Kansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fabricated quotes and civil rights involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Kansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

KansasSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Kansas

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateApr 29, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

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.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff’s brief contained quotations attributed to three cited cases that do not appear in those opinions; the court confirmed the quotes were absent and suspected AI generation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith?: False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff’s brief contained quotations attributed to three cited cases that do not appear in those opinions; the court confirmed the quotes were absent and suspected AI generation. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fabricated quotes and civil rights involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Kansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith?: 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 Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith 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.

Marquez v. DreilingD. Kansas · Jun 29, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + civil rights Kennon v. AshleyD. Kansas · Feb 18, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + civil rights Ford v. Sherwin-WilliamsD. Kansas · Mar 31, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + trial Zesiger v. Kansas et al.D. Kansas · Mar 17, 2026same court · civil rights + trial Sammie Dwayne McPhaul v. College Hills OPCOD. Kansas · Jan 6, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + trial McLain v. Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, Kansas, et al.D. Kansas · Dec 11, 2025same court · civil rights + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Questions this record answers

What happened in Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith?

Why does Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith?

Which source supports this Justin Spiehs v. Erik Smith 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.