Larkin v. Menard, Inc., et al.
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 Minnesota · Nov 2, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Larkin’s motion for appointment of expert witnesses contained a citation to a nonexistent case. The opposing parties brought the defect to the district court’s attention; Larkin apologized, and the court declined to sanction him for the citation alone.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Minnesota. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Larkin’s motion for appointment of expert witnesses contained a citation to a nonexistent case. The opposing parties brought the defect to the district court’s attention; Larkin apologized, and the court declined to sanction him for the citation alone.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Minnesota. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Larkin’s motion for appointment of expert witnesses contained a citation to a nonexistent case. The opposing parties brought the defect to the district court’s attention; Larkin apologized, and the court declined to sanction him for the citation alone.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Larkin v. Menard, Inc., et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Larkin’s motion for appointment of expert witnesses contained a citation to a nonexistent case. The opposing parties brought the defect to the district court’s attention; Larkin apologized, and the court declined to sanction him for the citation alone.
- Why does Larkin v. Menard, Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in CA Minnesota. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Larkin v. Menard, Inc., et al.?
- 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 Larkin v. Menard, Inc., et al. 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.
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.