HomeCasesPostma v. York

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

Postma v. York

D. Iowa · Jan 2, 2025

IA / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to Compel (D0143) cited a nonexistent case 'Midwest Recovery Servs. v. Cooperatives Ins. Co., 785 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010)'; court could not locate citation and concluded it was likely manufactured. Outcome: Brief Struck; Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Brief Struck; Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in D. Iowa, 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 Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in D. Iowa, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

IowaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Iowa

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit8th Circuit

DateJan 2, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeBrief Struck; Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Brief Struck; Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to Compel (D0143) cited a nonexistent case 'Midwest Recovery Servs. v. Cooperatives Ins. Co., 785 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010)'; court could not locate citation and concluded it was likely manufactured.
Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to Gain Access to Documents (D0143) cited 'Hickman v. Sacred Heart Corp., 653 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2002)', which the court could not locate and appears to be an AI-created mis-citation possibly conflating State v. Watson decisions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to Dismiss (D0150) cited 'Kellogg v. Iowa State Bank of Wapello, 189 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 1971)', a misattributed citation (actual reporter reference tied to an unrelated Michigan case) and not relevant to the issues asserted.
Fabricated: Case Law | Resistance (D0164) cited 'Niemann v. Breen, 641 N.W.2d 146 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002)', which the court found does not exist and corresponds to a South Dakota case instead; cited to support pro se leniency.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff identified approximately ten additional instances across York's filings where cases or citations were nonexistent or did not support the propositions attributed to them.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Postma v. York?: Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to Compel (D0143) cited a nonexistent case 'Midwest Recovery Servs. v. Cooperatives Ins. Co., 785 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010)'; court could not locate citation and concluded it was likely manufactured. Outcome: Brief Struck; Warning.
Why does Postma v. York matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in D. Iowa, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Postma v. York?: 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 Postma v. York 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.

April Ann Nelson v. Navient Solutions, LLC, et al.S.D. Iowa · Sep 4, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Mary McGreevy v. Adam WitkinSC Oregon · Jun 4, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (2)N.D. Mississippi · May 7, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Morton v. CherkaouiB.C. CA · May 1, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Mazac v. MuiseNS SC · Apr 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Brian Smith v. TD Auto Finance LLC, et al.N.D. Mississippi · Apr 14, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

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

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in D. Iowa, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to Gain Access to Documents (D0143) cited 'Hickman v. Sacred Heart Corp., 653 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2002)', which the court could not locate and appears to be an AI-created mis-citation possibly conflating State v. Watson decisions.

Fabricated: Case Law | Motion to Dismiss (D0150) cited 'Kellogg v. Iowa State Bank of Wapello, 189 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 1971)', a misattributed citation (actual reporter reference tied to an unrelated Michigan case) and not relevant to the issues asserted.

Fabricated: Case Law | Resistance (D0164) cited 'Niemann v. Breen, 641 N.W.2d 146 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002)', which the court found does not exist and corresponds to a South Dakota case instead; cited to support pro se leniency.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff identified approximately ten additional instances across York's filings where cases or citations were nonexistent or did not support the propositions attributed to them.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Postma v. York?

Why does Postma v. York matter for legal AI risk?

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in D. Iowa, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

What does the public record establish about Postma v. York?

Which source supports this Postma v. York 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.