HomeCasesMagee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.

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.

Corpus matter record

Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.

E.D. Arkansas · Dec 2, 2025

AR / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's AI-generated filing included two entirely fabricated case citations; New Balance identified and alleged fabrication in its motion to strike; the Court relied on the motion and stricken the filing. Outcome: Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's AI-generated filing included two entirely fabricated case citations; New Balance identified and alleged fabrication in its motion to strike; the Court relied on the motion and stricken the filing. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's response contained invented/false quotations attributed to multiple cases (New Balance alleged 23 false quotations); the Court found the false quotations pervasive and struck the filing. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the holdings of numerous authorities (New Balance alleged 27 of 30 cases were misstated); the Court found the misstatements interwoven with argument and therefore unreliable.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Arkansas, with the listed outcome: Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Arkansas, with the listed outcome: Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause.

Record details

ArkansasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. Arkansas

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit8th Circuit

DateDec 2, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeBrief Stricken; Order to Show Cause

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

Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause

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 | Plaintiff's AI-generated filing included two entirely fabricated case citations; New Balance identified and alleged fabrication in its motion to strike; the Court relied on the motion and stricken the filing.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's response contained invented/false quotations attributed to multiple cases (New Balance alleged 23 false quotations); the Court found the false quotations pervasive and struck the filing.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the holdings of numerous authorities (New Balance alleged 27 of 30 cases were misstated); the Court found the misstatements interwoven with argument and therefore unreliable.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's AI-generated filing included two entirely fabricated case citations; New Balance identified and alleged fabrication in its motion to strike; the Court relied on the motion and stricken the filing. Outcome: Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause.
Why does Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Arkansas, with the listed outcome: Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause.
What does the public record establish about Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.?: 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 Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. 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.

Mary Stephens v. Helena-West Helena School DistrictE.D. Arkansas · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In re Whitehall Pharmacy LLCE.D. Arkansas · Sep 3, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1)High Court · Dec 6, 2024pro se + fake citations Susan Elizabeth Duve v. William Charles Forrest, et al.S.D. Texas · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Nady v. Al Sadi, 2026 ONSC 3760Ontario SCJ · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al.W.D. Washington · Jun 15, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified

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 E.D. Arkansas, with the listed outcome: Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause.

Record details

ArkansasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. Arkansas

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit8th Circuit

DateDec 2, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeBrief Stricken; Order to Show Cause

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's response contained invented/false quotations attributed to multiple cases (New Balance alleged 23 false quotations); the Court found the false quotations pervasive and struck the filing.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the holdings of numerous authorities (New Balance alleged 27 of 30 cases were misstated); the Court found the misstatements interwoven with argument and therefore unreliable.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.?

Why does Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Arkansas, with the listed outcome: Brief Stricken; Order to Show Cause.

What does the public record establish about Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.?

Which source supports this Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. 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.