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.
K.C. v. D.R.
CA Texas · Apr 30, 2026
TX / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
The Texas appellate decision identified several nonexistent or unsupported authorities in an appellant's briefing, including a citation that did not exist, and explained that arguments resting only on such authority were unsupported under the applicable briefing rules.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Texas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
The Texas appellate decision identified several nonexistent or unsupported authorities in an appellant's briefing, including a citation that did not exist, and explained that arguments resting only on such authority were unsupported under the applicable briefing rules.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Texas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
TexasSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Texas
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit5th Circuit
DateApr 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist (listed by court).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist (listed by court).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a case that does not appear to exist; court could not locate the citation and noted appellant repeated it.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant provided a purported quote attributed to an existing case that the court found does not exist in that opinion.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant misrepresented the holding of an existing case, claiming it reversed a protective order when the court actually affirmed.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited multiple existing cases that the court found did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in K.C. v. D.R.?
- The Texas appellate decision identified several nonexistent or unsupported authorities in an appellant's briefing, including a citation that did not exist, and explained that arguments resting only on such authority were unsupported under the applicable briefing rules.
- Why does K.C. v. D.R. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Texas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about K.C. v. D.R.?
- 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 K.C. v. D.R. 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.