Plaintiff v. Defendant
SC Connecticut · Mar 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Connecticut
- Record ID
- plaintiff-v-defendant-2026-03-27
- Observed outcome
- Warning
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Warning
websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Source Unavailable (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.