AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Mattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al.

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Jesse Schaefer; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

D. South Dakota · Nov 17, 2025

SD / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesadministrativeWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants flagged numerous fictitious case citations and incorrect case citations in Plaintiffs' response brief; Plaintiffs later filed a Notice of Corrected Citations and the Court noted the issue. Outcome: Warning (the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs and told them to review and abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) in future filings, Doc. 42, section VIII). Defendants' reply identified fictitious cases, incorrect citations, and non-existent quotations in Plaintiffs' response brief. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Corrected Citations;…

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants flagged numerous fictitious case citations and incorrect case citations in Plaintiffs' response brief; Plaintiffs later filed a Notice of Corrected Citations and the Court noted the issue. || False Quotes: Case Law | Defendants identified non-existent quotations and misquoted case law in Plaintiffs' brief; Plaintiffs filed corrections and the Court reviewed the submissions, declining sanctions.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Dakota, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants flagged numerous fictitious case citations and incorrect case citations in Plaintiffs' response brief; Plaintiffs later filed a Notice of Corrected Citations and the Court noted the issue. Outcome: Warning (the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs and told them to review and abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) in future filings, Doc. 42, section VIII). Defendants' reply identified fictitious cases, incorrect citations, and non-existent quotations in Plaintiffs' response brief. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Corrected Citations; the Court noted formatting that suggested use of generative AI but declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs, advising compliance with Rule 11 in future filings.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Dakota, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

South DakotaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore SDOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. South Dakota
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit8th Circuit
DateNov 17, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning: court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs and told them to review and abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) in future filings (Doc. 42, section VIII)
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

Warning: court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs and told them to review and abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) in future filings (Doc. 42, section VIII)

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants flagged numerous fictitious case citations and incorrect case citations in Plaintiffs' response brief; Plaintiffs later filed a Notice of Corrected Citations and the Court noted the issue.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Defendants identified non-existent quotations and misquoted case law in Plaintiffs' brief; Plaintiffs filed corrections and the Court reviewed the submissions, declining sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al.?
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants flagged numerous fictitious case citations and incorrect case citations in Plaintiffs' response brief; Plaintiffs later filed a Notice of Corrected Citations and the Court noted the issue. Outcome: Warning (the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs and told them to review and abide by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) in future filings, Doc. 42, section VIII). Defendants' reply identified fictitious cases, incorrect citations, and non-existent quotations in Plaintiffs' response brief. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Corrected Citations;…
Why does Mattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Dakota, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Mattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al.?
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 Mattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative 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.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Yasmani Gurri Rubio v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.D. Maryland · May 1, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Louis J. Blazy v. Department of StateCBCA · Feb 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

This record mentions Rule 11. See Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations for the rule text and counts across the corpus.

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

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.