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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et al
D. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026
NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quoteslandlord tenant
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.
- 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.
Operational lesson
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. New Jersey
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateJun 26, 2026
AI
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
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?
- 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.
- 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.