AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 15, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesPrisbrey v. Prisbrey
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Prisbrey v. Prisbrey

CA Utah · Mar 19, 2026

UT / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamilyappellateNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Utah Court of Appeals vacated a judgment and remanded for a new trial because the district court abused its discretion by admitting late-disclosed evidence. Additionally, the appellate court publicly admonished the appellee's counsel for filing a brief containing numerous fabricated or incorrect legal citations and a total absence of record citations.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence disclosed eighteen months late, which prejudiced the appellant by denying him the opportunity to conduct discovery. Regarding the briefing, the court noted that appellate judges and law clerks verify the accuracy of cited propositions and sources, finding the appellee's brief fell far short of expectations due to phantom citations and inaccurate case law references.
Why it matters now
If only one of seven citations in an argument section is correct, expect published criticism; verify before filing, not after challenge.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appellate divorce proceeding, the Utah Court of Appeals vacated a district court judgment and remanded for a new trial due to the improper admission of late-disclosed evidence. The appellate court further criticized the appellee's counsel for significant briefing failures. The court noted that the appellee's brief lacked any record citations and contained numerous defective legal citations. Specifically, the court found that four of six citations in the standards of review section were incorrect, and in the argument section, only one of seven citations was accurate. The court characterized some of these citations as appearing to be made out of whole cloth, emphasizing that appellate advocates must verify the accuracy of their assertions and cited authorities.

Operational lesson

If only one of seven citations in an argument section is correct, expect published criticism; verify before filing, not after challenge.

Record details

UtahSingle-state evidence scope
Explore UTOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Utah
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit10th Circuit
DateMar 19, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe appellate court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial to be conducted without the improperly admitted evidence.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionPublic judicial criticism of counsel's briefing and citation practices.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

unspecified

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a district court judgment in a divorce case, resulting in a vacated judgment and remand for a new trial.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief included multiple incorrect or nonexistent Utah case citations; the court found four of six cited authorities incorrect and said some citations "appear to be made out of whole cloth."
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Argument section contained several incorrect citations (wrong case names, unrelated authority, incorrect paragraph cites); only one of seven citations in that section was correct according to the court.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Prisbrey v. Prisbrey?
The Utah Court of Appeals vacated a judgment and remanded for a new trial because the district court abused its discretion by admitting late-disclosed evidence. Additionally, the appellate court publicly admonished the appellee's counsel for filing a brief containing numerous fabricated or incorrect legal citations and a total absence of record citations.
Why does Prisbrey v. Prisbrey matter for legal AI risk?
If only one of seven citations in an argument section is correct, expect published criticism; verify before filing, not after challenge.
What does the public record establish about Prisbrey v. Prisbrey?
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 Prisbrey v. Prisbrey 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.

Garner v. KadinceCA Utah · May 22, 2025same court · fake citations + appellateWhitehead v. MooreCA Missouri · Aug 4, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In the Interest of S.M.T. and S.J.T., ChildrenCA Texas · Jul 30, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Teresa Jewel Whitten v. Kristopher Brian EverittCA Kentucky · Jul 10, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F.CA Alabama · Jun 26, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Jaime Alexander Davidson v. Nayeli Nadir Chang-WarnerCA Florida (6d) · Jun 26, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)