Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Matthew Lewis v. Eagle County Government
D. Colorado · Nov 14, 2025
CO / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authorityemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Court noted the original Complaint relied on a pre-2011 regulatory '20% rule' that was amended in 2011 and therefore was a superseded/regulatory error. Outcome: Fine and Costs Order. Fine was 3,000 USD, to which the court added 25,000 USD in costs in a subsequent order.
- Why the court cared
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Court noted the original Complaint relied on a pre-2011 regulatory '20% rule' that was amended in 2011 and therefore was a superseded/regulatory error. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found this citation does not correspond to any existing opinion; counsel later conceded the citation, as presented, was fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found this citation, as presented, does not exist and was included in the First Amended Complaint. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined this cited decision, in the form presented in the pleading, does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court concluded this citation as presented does not correspond to an existing case; included in First Amended Complaint. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court observed counsel cited Huff for a proposition it does not support; Huff holds §203(y) does not require actual fire suppression, cutting against Plaintiff's asserted proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court determined this case is inapposite to the §203(y) proposition for which it was cited (does not involve §203(y)). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found these cited Ninth Circuit decisions do not support the proposition they were cited for (they did not arise on motions to dismiss as claimed). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found counsel misused this Ninth Circuit authority; it does not support the asserted proposition at the pleading stage.
- Why it matters now
- Costs add up fast — a $3K fine ballooned to $28K once opposing fees were taxed; every unverified cite is a fee-shifting risk.
Why this matter is tracked
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Court noted the original Complaint relied on a pre-2011 regulatory '20% rule' that was amended in 2011 and therefore was a superseded/regulatory error. Outcome: Fine and Costs Order. Fine was 3,000 USD, to which the court added 25,000 USD in costs in a subsequent order.
Operational lesson
Costs add up fast — a $3K fine ballooned to $28K once opposing fees were taxed; every unverified cite is a fee-shifting risk.
Record details
ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Colorado
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateNov 14, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeFine and Costs Order
Known amount$28,000
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
Fine and Costs Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
9 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Court noted the original Complaint relied on a pre-2011 regulatory '20% rule' that was amended in 2011 and therefore was a superseded/regulatory error.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found this citation does not correspond to any existing opinion; counsel later conceded the citation, as presented, was fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found this citation, as presented, does not exist and was included in the First Amended Complaint.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined this cited decision, in the form presented in the pleading, does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court concluded this citation as presented does not correspond to an existing case; included in First Amended Complaint.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court observed counsel cited Huff for a proposition it does not support; Huff holds §203(y) does not require actual fire suppression, cutting against Plaintiff's asserted proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court determined this case is inapposite to the §203(y) proposition for which it was cited (does not involve §203(y)).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found these cited Ninth Circuit decisions do not support the proposition they were cited for (they did not arise on motions to dismiss as claimed).
Show 1 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found counsel misused this Ninth Circuit authority; it does not support the asserted proposition at the pleading stage.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Matthew Lewis v. Eagle County Government?
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Court noted the original Complaint relied on a pre-2011 regulatory '20% rule' that was amended in 2011 and therefore was a superseded/regulatory error. Outcome: Fine and Costs Order. Fine was 3,000 USD, to which the court added 25,000 USD in costs in a subsequent order.
- Why does Matthew Lewis v. Eagle County Government matter for legal AI risk?
- Costs add up fast — a $3K fine ballooned to $28K once opposing fees were taxed; every unverified cite is a fee-shifting risk.
- What does the public record establish about Matthew Lewis v. Eagle County Government?
- 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 Matthew Lewis v. Eagle County Government 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.