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.
Nelson v. Derry
Minnesota · Apr 15, 2026
MN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Husband cited 'DeMars v. DeMars, 590 N.W.2d 116, 120-21 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)', which the court was unable to locate and flagged as an invalid/nonexistent citation, noting AI-generated hallucinations as a known source of such fake cases.
- 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 Minnesota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Husband cited 'DeMars v. DeMars, 590 N.W.2d 116, 120-21 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)', which the court was unable to locate and flagged as an invalid/nonexistent citation, noting AI-generated hallucinations as a known source of such fake cases.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Minnesota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
MinnesotaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtMinnesota
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateApr 15, 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 | Husband cited 'DeMars v. DeMars, 590 N.W.2d 116, 120-21 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)', which the court was unable to locate and flagged as an invalid/nonexistent citation, noting AI-generated hallucinations as a known source of such fake cases.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nelson v. Derry?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Husband cited 'DeMars v. DeMars, 590 N.W.2d 116, 120-21 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)', which the court was unable to locate and flagged as an invalid/nonexistent citation, noting AI-generated hallucinations as a known source of such fake cases.
- Why does Nelson v. Derry matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Minnesota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Nelson v. Derry?
- 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 Nelson v. Derry 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.