HomeCasesMattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al.

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

Mattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al.

D. South Dakota · Nov 17, 2025

SD / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesadministrative

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. 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.

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

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

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

CourtD. South Dakota

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit8th Circuit

DateNov 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

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 | 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.

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. 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.
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)

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 D. South Dakota, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

South DakotaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. South Dakota

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit8th Circuit

DateNov 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

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.?

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.?

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.