Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.
S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2025
NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | References to findings that the judge in charge did not make. Outcome: Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings..
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings. in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | References to findings that the judge in charge did not make. Outcome: Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings..
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings. in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateOct 18, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCertification requirement for future AI-assisted filings.
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
Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | References to findings that the judge in charge did not make.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Objections purportedly quoted language attributed to Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 122 (N.Y. 1993) that the court found was not an accurate quotation from that opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Objections purportedly quoted Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002) — the court found the cited quotation/case did not exist in the form presented.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Objections purportedly quoted language attributed to Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) that the court determined was not an accurate quotation from that opinion.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.?
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | References to findings that the judge in charge did not make. Outcome: Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings..
- Why does Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Certification requirement for future AI-assisted filings. in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.?
- 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 Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty 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.