Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et al
D. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Court issued a formal warning to pro se plaintiffs for including fabricated case law and nonexistent quotes in their filings. The Court explicitly noted that these errors, whether or not generated by artificial intelligence, are unacceptable and that future submissions containing such material may result in sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Another cited decision that the Court could not find and determined appears to be nonexistent..
- Why it matters now
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Why this matter is tracked
In Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et al, the D. New Jersey addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that another cited decision that the Court could not find and determined appears to be nonexistent. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-26. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The Court referenced the possibility of AI-generated content in the context of the fabricated citations.
Memorandum Order resolving three motions brought by pro se plaintiffs, including two motions to strike and a motion for clarification regarding service of process.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Another cited decision that the Court could not find and determined appears to be nonexistent.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court could not locate a quoted parenthetical attributed to In re Global Const. & Supply, Inc.; the quoted language does not appear in the cited decision after extensive review.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case that does not appear to exist, which the Court could not locate in its review.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et al?
- The Court issued a formal warning to pro se plaintiffs for including fabricated case law and nonexistent quotes in their filings. The Court explicitly noted that these errors, whether or not generated by artificial intelligence, are unacceptable and that future submissions containing such material may result in sanctions.
- Why does Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et al matter for legal AI risk?
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
- What does the public record establish about Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et al?
- Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
- Which source supports this Peterkin et al v. McIntyre 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.