HomeCasesMcCaster v. United States

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

McCaster v. United States

Court of Federal Claims · Oct 23, 2025

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'R.D. Bennett Constr. Co. v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 196, 206 (1962)'; the Court noted the reporter citation corresponds to Lipp v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 197 (1962), and admonished the plaintiff. Outcome: Admonishment.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Admonishment; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment in Court of Federal Claims, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment in Court of Federal Claims, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtCourt of Federal Claims

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitNot recorded

DateOct 23, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment

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

Admonishment

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 | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'R.D. Bennett Constr. Co. v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 196, 206 (1962)'; the Court noted the reporter citation corresponds to Lipp v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 197 (1962), and admonished the plaintiff.

Questions this record answers

What happened in McCaster v. United States?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'R.D. Bennett Constr. Co. v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 196, 206 (1962)'; the Court noted the reporter citation corresponds to Lipp v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl. 197 (1962), and admonished the plaintiff. Outcome: Admonishment.
Why does McCaster v. United States matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment in Court of Federal Claims, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about McCaster v. United States?: 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 McCaster v. United States 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.

Polinski v. USACourt of Federal Claims · Oct 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Parra v. United StatesCourt of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Nathan Strong v. The United StatesCourt of Federal Claims · Nov 13, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Julia Rose v. Arts Bonita, Inc., et al.M.D. Florida · Jul 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMSE.D. Missouri · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Jordan Slach v. City of Battle GroundW.D. Washington · Jul 2, 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

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

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in McCaster v. United States?

Why does McCaster v. United States matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about McCaster v. United States?

Which source supports this McCaster v. United States 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.