Miller v. Colorado Department of Revenue
D. Colorado · Sep 30, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 2011 WL 1103376 (S.D. Cal. 2011).” The court could not locate that case or citation; the Westlaw citation led to Cohen v. Federal Express Corp., and the similar real Hurley case was from the W.D. Mich. The court also found that the available Hurley orders did not support Plaintiff’s quoted proposition concerning SCRA coverage of interest and similar charges. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Order to Show Cause. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to Show Cause in D. Colorado. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 2011 WL 1103376 (S.D. Cal. 2011).” The court could not locate that case or citation; the Westlaw citation led to Cohen v. Federal Express Corp., and the similar real Hurley case was from the W.D. Mich. The court also found that the available Hurley orders did not support Plaintiff’s quoted proposition concerning SCRA coverage of interest and similar charges. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to Show Cause in D. Colorado. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Order to Show Cause
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 2011 WL 1103376 (S.D. Cal. 2011).” The court could not locate that case or citation; the Westlaw citation led to Cohen v. Federal Express Corp., and the similar real Hurley case was from the W.D. Mich. The court also found that the available Hurley orders did not support Plaintiff’s quoted proposition concerning SCRA coverage of interest and similar charges.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff represented that Hurley held that the SCRA covers interest and similar charges, including service fees and late fees. The court reviewed the actual Hurley orders and found that none supported that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brewster as a D.C. Circuit case and claimed it held that 50 U.S.C. § 3937 requires creditors to forgive all interest and charges above six percent. The court determined that Brewster was a Ninth Circuit case concerning the meaning of “foreclosure” and did not address § 3937 or forgiveness of excessive interest.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff stated that Robin Farms granted an SCRA continuance because the servicemember was away on active duty. The court found the opposite: the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the motion for continuance.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented that Batie v. Subway settled for approximately $10 million. The court found no public docket support for that assertion and noted that the case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction against the corporate defendant, followed by dismissal of claims against the individual defendant.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff represented that Cathey v. First Republic Bank settled for approximately $4 million. The court found that none of the public docket entries reflected the amount of any settlement.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Miller v. Colorado Department of Revenue?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “Hurley v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 2011 WL 1103376 (S.D. Cal. 2011).” The court could not locate that case or citation; the Westlaw citation led to Cohen v. Federal Express Corp., and the similar real Hurley case was from the W.D. Mich. The court also found that the available Hurley orders did not support Plaintiff’s quoted proposition concerning SCRA coverage of interest and similar charges. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why does Miller v. Colorado Department of Revenue matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to Show Cause in D. Colorado. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Miller v. Colorado Department of Revenue?
- 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 Miller v. Colorado Department of Revenue 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.