HomeCasesMay v Costaras

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

May v Costaras

NSW CA · Aug 8, 2025

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent’s list of authorities included a non-existent case; the Court confirmed no such case exists. Outcome: Appeal dismissed. No specific sanction for AI use, but highlighted need for judicial vigilance..

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Appeal dismissed. No specific sanction for AI use, but highlighted need for judicial vigilance.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: NSW Court of Appeal flagged the need for judicial vigilance — assume any pro-se authority list contains at least one hallucination.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

NSW Court of Appeal flagged the need for judicial vigilance — assume any pro-se authority list contains at least one hallucination.

Record details

CourtNSW CA

Jurisdictioninternational

Circuit9th Circuit

DateAug 8, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeAppeal dismissed. No specific sanction for AI use, but highlighted need for judicial vigilance.

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

Appeal dismissed. No specific sanction for AI use, but highlighted need for judicial vigilance.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent’s list of authorities included a non-existent case; the Court confirmed no such case exists.

Questions this record answers

What happened in May v Costaras?: Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent’s list of authorities included a non-existent case; the Court confirmed no such case exists. Outcome: Appeal dismissed. No specific sanction for AI use, but highlighted need for judicial vigilance..
Why does May v Costaras matter for legal AI risk?: NSW Court of Appeal flagged the need for judicial vigilance — assume any pro-se authority list contains at least one hallucination.
What does the public record establish about May v Costaras?: 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 May v Costaras 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.

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.D. Nevada · Jul 13, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Bailey v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.W.D. Tennessee · Jun 8, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Mary McGreevy v. Adam WitkinSC Oregon · Jun 4, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)D. Delaware · May 27, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (2)N.D. Mississippi · May 7, 2026fake citations + contract · 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

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

NSW Court of Appeal flagged the need for judicial vigilance — assume any pro-se authority list contains at least one hallucination.

Questions this record answers

What happened in May v Costaras?

Why does May v Costaras matter for legal AI risk?

NSW Court of Appeal flagged the need for judicial vigilance — assume any pro-se authority list contains at least one hallucination.

What does the public record establish about May v Costaras?

Which source supports this May v Costaras 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.