HomeCasesNgaruiya v. Gill

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.

Corpus matter record

Ngaruiya v. Gill

CA Arizona (1d) · Jun 16, 2026

AZ / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn by attributing language that does not appear and applying it to an unrelated proposition. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Arizona (1d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn by attributing language that does not appear and applying it to an unrelated proposition. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Arizona (1d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Arizona (1d)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn by attributing language that does not appear and applying it to an unrelated proposition.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Brief misquotes Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and misattributes or misstates related authority (Ruffino and Hilgeman) in support of the rule proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains two fabricated quotations purportedly from Master Fin., Inc. v. Woodburn; court found the quoted language did not appear in the opinion.
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains a fabricated quotation purportedly from Bollermann v. Nowlis though the case does not concern the asserted proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains a fabricated quotation purportedly from Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc., but the quoted language does not appear and the case does not support the proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains a fabricated quotation purportedly from State v. Silva; court noted Silva generally concerns the proposition but the quotation was fabricated or inaccurate.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misquotes Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co.; court noted Mullane generally concerns the proposition but the language was inaccurate.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ngaruiya v. Gill?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn by attributing language that does not appear and applying it to an unrelated proposition. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Ngaruiya v. Gill matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Arizona (1d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Ngaruiya v. Gill?: 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 Ngaruiya v. Gill 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.

Dineen/Shibata v. KotchkaCA Arizona (1d) · Jul 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In the Matter of the Estate of KuerschnerCA Arizona · Mar 5, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Barari v. BurgessCA Arizona (1d) · Jun 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Hampton v. LoftonCA Arizona (1d) · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In the Matter of the Estate of Arturo LopezCA Arizona · Feb 27, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations In re the Matter of: Abius Rosas CarreonCA Arizona · Feb 4, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn by attributing language that does not appear and applying it to an unrelated proposition. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Arizona (1d)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn by attributing language that does not appear and applying it to an unrelated proposition.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Brief misquotes Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and misattributes or misstates related authority (Ruffino and Hilgeman) in support of the rule proposition.

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains two fabricated quotations purportedly from Master Fin., Inc. v. Woodburn; court found the quoted language did not appear in the opinion.

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains a fabricated quotation purportedly from Bollermann v. Nowlis though the case does not concern the asserted proposition.

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains a fabricated quotation purportedly from Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc., but the quoted language does not appear and the case does not support the proposition.

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contains a fabricated quotation purportedly from State v. Silva; court noted Silva generally concerns the proposition but the quotation was fabricated or inaccurate.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misquotes Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co.; court noted Mullane generally concerns the proposition but the language was inaccurate.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ngaruiya v. Gill?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief misrepresents In re Marriage of Thorn by attributing language that does not appear and applying it to an unrelated proposition. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Ngaruiya v. Gill matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Ngaruiya v. Gill?

Which source supports this Ngaruiya v. Gill 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.