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.
Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova
AC Illinois · Mar 11, 2026
IL / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Four citations in the defendant's briefs were styled as legal authorities but did not exist or could not be verified; court noted they appeared to be AI-generated and unsupported. Outcome: Warning (both parties). Appellate court found briefs from the parties contained six AI-style citations (four from defendant, two from plaintiff) that either did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court cautioned compliance with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI but imposed no sanctions and affirmed the judgment due to an inadequate record on appeal.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning (both parties); the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning (both parties) in AC Illinois, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Four citations in the defendant's briefs were styled as legal authorities but did not exist or could not be verified; court noted they appeared to be AI-generated and unsupported. Outcome: Warning (both parties). Appellate court found briefs from the parties contained six AI-style citations (four from defendant, two from plaintiff) that either did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court cautioned compliance with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI but imposed no sanctions and affirmed the judgment due to an inadequate record on appeal.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning (both parties) in AC Illinois, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope
CourtAC Illinois
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateMar 11, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning (both parties)
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 (both parties)
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Four citations in the defendant's briefs were styled as legal authorities but did not exist or could not be verified; court noted they appeared to be AI-generated and unsupported.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Two citations in the plaintiff's brief were cited for propositions they did not support; court characterized these as inaccurate/misrepresented citations likely produced by generative AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Four citations in the defendant's briefs were styled as legal authorities but did not exist or could not be verified; court noted they appeared to be AI-generated and unsupported. Outcome: Warning (both parties). Appellate court found briefs from the parties contained six AI-style citations (four from defendant, two from plaintiff) that either did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court cautioned compliance with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on AI but imposed no sanctions and affirmed the judgment due to an inadequate record on appeal.
- Why does Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning (both parties) in AC Illinois, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova?
- 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 Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova 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.