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 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Moses v. State
CA Tennessee · Feb 25, 2026
TN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstortappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained at least one fictitious case citation; the court stated it would disregard any authorities it could not verify as authentic. The court observed that Moses' brief contained several citation errors and at least one fictitious case. The court stated it would disregard any legal authorities it could not verify as authentic and proceeded to decide the appeal on the merits, ultimately affirming the Claims Commission's dismissal.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained at least one fictitious case citation; the court stated it would disregard any authorities it could not verify as authentic.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Tennessee, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained at least one fictitious case citation; the court stated it would disregard any authorities it could not verify as authentic. The court observed that Moses' brief contained several citation errors and at least one fictitious case. The court stated it would disregard any legal authorities it could not verify as authentic and proceeded to decide the appeal on the merits, ultimately affirming the Claims Commission's dismissal.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Tennessee, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
TennesseeSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Tennessee
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit6th Circuit
DateFeb 25, 2026
AI
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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained at least one fictitious case citation; the court stated it would disregard any authorities it could not verify as authentic.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Moses v. State?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained at least one fictitious case citation; the court stated it would disregard any authorities it could not verify as authentic. The court observed that Moses' brief contained several citation errors and at least one fictitious case. The court stated it would disregard any legal authorities it could not verify as authentic and proceeded to decide the appeal on the merits, ultimately affirming the Claims Commission's dismissal.
- Why does Moses v. State matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Tennessee, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Moses v. State?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Moses v. State 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.