Moore v. Jackson Walker LLP, et al.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
S.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff used thirteen erroneous or fictitious case citations in his filings and later withdrew them after the Court issued a show-cause order. The Court treated the use of nonexistent authorities as a Rule 11(b)(2) violation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order in S.D. Texas. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff used thirteen erroneous or fictitious case citations in his filings and later withdrew them after the Court issued a show-cause order. The Court treated the use of nonexistent authorities as a Rule 11(b)(2) violation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order in S.D. Texas. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff used thirteen erroneous or fictitious case citations in his filings and later withdrew them after the Court issued a show-cause order. The Court treated the use of nonexistent authorities as a Rule 11(b)(2) violation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The plaintiff cited In re T-H New Orleans for a legal proposition the Court found inapplicable; deleting the citation did not cure the unsupported argument based on it.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The Court found that the plaintiff continued to misapply and misunderstand Serta and Aweco despite prior explanations by bankruptcy judges that his interpretations were incorrect.
- False Quotes: Case Law | The Court characterized the plaintiff’s filings as containing false quotations and inaccurate legal holdings, concluding that the citations and authorities had not been personally read and verified.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Moore v. Jackson Walker LLP, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff used thirteen erroneous or fictitious case citations in his filings and later withdrew them after the Court issued a show-cause order. The Court treated the use of nonexistent authorities as a Rule 11(b)(2) violation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order.
- Why does Moore v. Jackson Walker LLP, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order in S.D. Texas. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Moore v. Jackson Walker LLP, 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 Moore v. Jackson Walker LLP, 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.
This record mentions Rule 11. See Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations for the rule text and counts across the corpus.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.