AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKim v. Wexel
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Kim v. Wexel

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

CA Georgia · Jun 24, 2026

GA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilyappellateWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Kim v. Wexel, the CA Georgia addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-24. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In Kim v. Wexel, the CA Georgia addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-24. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore GAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Georgia
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit11th Circuit
DateJun 24, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kim v. Wexel?
In Kim v. Wexel, the CA Georgia addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-24. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
Why does Kim v. Wexel matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about Kim v. Wexel?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this Kim v. Wexel 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.

Washington v. WashingtonCA Georgia · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBroyles v. McNealCA Georgia · May 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMitchell v. HIG Realty Credit Fund, L.P.CA Georgia · Aug 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSlay v. RossCA Georgia · Mar 9, 2026same court · fake citations + familyShahid v. EsaamCA Georgia · Jun 30, 2025same court · fake citations + familyHenry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al.CA Georgia · Jun 10, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.