HomeCasesLin v. Leal

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

Lin v. Leal

California SC · Oct 23, 2025

CA / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case 'Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Grigsby' as supporting authority; court found the case does not exist and treated it as a fake citation. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to Show Cause; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in California SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in California SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCalifornia SC

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 23, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeOrder to Show Cause

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

Order to Show Cause

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 | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case 'Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Grigsby' as supporting authority; court found the case does not exist and treated it as a fake citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited an incorrect/misleading Sumitomo authority; the citation given is wrong and the cited authority does not appear to support Plaintiffs' proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Lin v. Leal?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case 'Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Grigsby' as supporting authority; court found the case does not exist and treated it as a fake citation. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Why does Lin v. Leal matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to Show Cause in California SC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Lin v. Leal?: 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 Lin v. Leal 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.

Greenberg v. First Bank, Inc.California SC · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Bacurin v. BacurinCalifornia SC · Jan 13, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Mareiorozyan v. Automobili Lamborghini America, LLCCalifornia SC · Nov 19, 2025same court · fake citations + contract Roman v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia SC · Aug 27, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Sanchez v. Chedraui USA, Inc.California SC · Nov 6, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Song Dow Lee, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, et al.C.D. California · May 7, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCalifornia SC

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 23, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeOrder to Show Cause

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case 'Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Grigsby' as supporting authority; court found the case does not exist and treated it as a fake citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited an incorrect/misleading Sumitomo authority; the citation given is wrong and the cited authority does not appear to support Plaintiffs' proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Lin v. Leal?

Why does Lin v. Leal matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Lin v. Leal?

Which source supports this Lin v. Leal 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.