HomeCasesPlaintiff v. Defendant

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Plaintiff v. Defendant

SC Connecticut · Mar 27, 2026

CT / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited 'Douchette v. Doucette, 50 Conn. App. 541, 544-45 (1998)' for the proposition that property distributions may be modified; court found the reporter citation corresponds to a different opinion (Glass v. Peter Mitchell Construction Leasing and Development Corporation, 50 Conn. App. 539 (1998)) and concluded the citation is an AI-generated hallucination. Outcome: Warning. DOCKET NO. FST-FA21-6050273-S

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 SC Connecticut, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

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

Record details

ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtSC Connecticut

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMar 27, 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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited 'Douchette v. Doucette, 50 Conn. App. 541, 544-45 (1998)' for the proposition that property distributions may be modified; court found the reporter citation corresponds to a different opinion (Glass v. Peter Mitchell Construction Leasing and Development Corporation, 50 Conn. App. 539 (1998)) and concluded the citation is an AI-generated hallucination.
Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple other fictitious or inapplicable cases and legal propositions in the defendant's motion (notably pages 2–3); court found most cited cases do not support the asserted propositions or do not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Plaintiff v. Defendant?: Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited 'Douchette v. Doucette, 50 Conn. App. 541, 544-45 (1998)' for the proposition that property distributions may be modified; court found the reporter citation corresponds to a different opinion (Glass v. Peter Mitchell Construction Leasing and Development Corporation, 50 Conn. App. 539 (1998)) and concluded the citation is an AI-generated hallucination. Outcome: Warning. DOCKET NO. FST-FA21-6050273-S
Why does Plaintiff v. Defendant matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in SC Connecticut, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Plaintiff v. Defendant?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Plaintiff v. Defendant summary?: The recorded source is websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

Kyne v. EhimaSC Connecticut · May 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Myers v. StateSC Connecticut · Jul 18, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Mohamed Hussain et al. v. Mansoor Quraishi et al.SC Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Kosel Equity v. McGregorSC Connecticut · Feb 19, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Jacobs v. Payward, Inc.D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Braica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)D. Connecticut · Dec 15, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

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 link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtSC Connecticut

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMar 27, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple other fictitious or inapplicable cases and legal propositions in the defendant's motion (notably pages 2–3); court found most cited cases do not support the asserted propositions or do not exist.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Plaintiff v. Defendant?

Why does Plaintiff v. Defendant matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Plaintiff v. Defendant?

Which source supports this Plaintiff v. Defendant summary?

The recorded source is websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.