HomeCasesLandmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus

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

Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus

CA Kansas · Feb 13, 2026

KS / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontractappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority. Outcome: Arguments deemed waived.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Edwards v. Scholtzs" to support that eviction terminated lease obligations; the court found no such Kansas authority and rejected the argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Wilson v. Gutschenritter" to argue lease obligations ceased after eviction; the court found no such Kansas caselaw and declined to rely on it.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.

Record details

KansasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Kansas

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit10th Circuit

DateFeb 13, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeArguments deemed waived

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

Arguments deemed waived

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Edwards v. Scholtzs" to support that eviction terminated lease obligations; the court found no such Kansas authority and rejected the argument.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Wilson v. Gutschenritter" to argue lease obligations ceased after eviction; the court found no such Kansas caselaw and declined to rely on it.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority. Outcome: Arguments deemed waived.
Why does Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.
What does the public record establish about Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus?: 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 Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus 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.

Kendall E. Scheer v. Scheer Farms, LLCCA Kansas · Jun 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Riverchase v. Paula GoldwynCA Kansas · Jan 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit UnionD. Kansas · Feb 25, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations P-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. James K. Bernard Jr.CA Illinois · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.

Record details

KansasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Kansas

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit10th Circuit

DateFeb 13, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeArguments deemed waived

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Meadors v. Feltor" for the same proposition; the court determined no Kansas report exists under that name and did not accept the authority.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Edwards v. Scholtzs" to support that eviction terminated lease obligations; the court found no such Kansas authority and rejected the argument.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Wilson v. Gutschenritter" to argue lease obligations ceased after eviction; the court found no such Kansas caselaw and declined to rely on it.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus?

Why does Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Kansas, with the listed outcome: Arguments deemed waived.

What does the public record establish about Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus?

Which source supports this Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus 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.