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 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump
W.D. Tennessee · Mar 30, 2026
TN / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a second nonexistent case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation does not exist. Outcome: Warning.
- 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
- Three fabricated cites in one motion is now the norm — courts catch them on independent research.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a second nonexistent case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation does not exist. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
Three fabricated cites in one motion is now the norm — courts catch them on independent research.
Record details
TennesseeSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Tennessee
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateMar 30, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
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 | Appellant relied on a second nonexistent case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a nonexistent case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a third nonexistent or misrepresentative case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation was erroneous/nonexistent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on a second nonexistent case citation in his motion for summary reversal; the Court's research confirmed the citation does not exist. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump matter for legal AI risk?
- Three fabricated cites in one motion is now the norm — courts catch them on independent research.
- What does the public record establish about Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump?
- 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 Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump 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.