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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Rashonna Moore v. City of Del City
10th Cir. CA · Dec 3, 2025
/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityemployment
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Eleven case citations in Moore's appellate brief could not be located on Westlaw; court concluded they appear fabricated and ordered Moore to produce copies or explain their origin. Outcome: District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury..
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Eleven case citations in Moore's appellate brief could not be located on Westlaw; court concluded they appear fabricated and ordered Moore to produce copies or explain their origin. || Fabricated: Case Law | Moore cited 'Cohen v. United States, 201 F.3d 109'; court found this citation fabricated (the reporter page corresponds to Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103) and treated it as an AI-generated hallucination. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Moore misrepresented Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), claiming it supported a particular principle; court found the representation inaccurate and that the case did not state the proposition she attributed to it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Moore cited Gilday v. Mecosta County, 124 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 1997) as supporting 'equitable access principles'; court found Gilday does not contain or use that language or principle and deemed the citation mischaracterized.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury..
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Eleven case citations in Moore's appellate brief could not be located on Westlaw; court concluded they appear fabricated and ordered Moore to produce copies or explain their origin. Outcome: District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury..
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury..
Record details
Court10th Cir. CA
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateDec 3, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeDistrict court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury.
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
District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Eleven case citations in Moore's appellate brief could not be located on Westlaw; court concluded they appear fabricated and ordered Moore to produce copies or explain their origin.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Moore cited 'Cohen v. United States, 201 F.3d 109'; court found this citation fabricated (the reporter page corresponds to Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103) and treated it as an AI-generated hallucination.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Moore misrepresented Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), claiming it supported a particular principle; court found the representation inaccurate and that the case did not state the proposition she attributed to it.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Moore cited Gilday v. Mecosta County, 124 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 1997) as supporting 'equitable access principles'; court found Gilday does not contain or use that language or principle and deemed the citation mischaracterized.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rashonna Moore v. City of Del City?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Eleven case citations in Moore's appellate brief could not be located on Westlaw; court concluded they appear fabricated and ordered Moore to produce copies or explain their origin. Outcome: District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury..
- Why does Rashonna Moore v. City of Del City matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury..
- What does the public record establish about Rashonna Moore v. City of Del City?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Rashonna Moore v. City of Del City 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.