HomeCasesMeyer v. Castroville State Bank

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Meyer v. Castroville State Bank

Texas Court of Appeals (4th Dist.) · Apr 22, 2026

TX / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Texas Court of Appeals (4th Dist.), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Texas Court of Appeals (4th Dist.), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtTexas Court of Appeals (4th Dist.)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit5th Circuit

DateApr 22, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

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 | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited a non-existent opinion purportedly from the Corpus Christi court; the Bank pointed it out and the court's research verified it does not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Meyer v. Castroville State Bank?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious.
Why does Meyer v. Castroville State Bank matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Texas Court of Appeals (4th Dist.), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Meyer v. Castroville State Bank?: 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 Meyer v. Castroville State Bank 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.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Frances W. DeanE.D. Texas · Feb 24, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Kenneth Hawkins v. I.C. System, Inc.S.D. Texas · Feb 23, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Johnson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionN.D. Texas · Dec 30, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Jayroe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance CompanyN.D. Texas · Oct 27, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations John Hurt v. Ampcus, Inc.E.D. Texas · Jul 8, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Rene Carbonell v. United States of AmericaW.D. Texas · Jun 30, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious.

Operational lesson

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtTexas Court of Appeals (4th Dist.)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit5th Circuit

DateApr 22, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited a non-existent opinion purportedly from the Corpus Christi court; the Bank pointed it out and the court's research verified it does not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Meyer v. Castroville State Bank?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellants cited an apparent Texas Supreme Court opinion that does not exist; the Bank highlighted the issue and the court confirmed the authority is fictitious.

Why does Meyer v. Castroville State Bank matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Meyer v. Castroville State Bank?

Which source supports this Meyer v. Castroville State Bank 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.