Rivard v. Dept. of Corrections
Vermont SC · Dec 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Vermont SC
- Record ID
- rivard-v-dept-of-corrections-2025-12-10
- Observed outcome
- The court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and admonished the petitioner for the use of spurious legal citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court admonished the pro se petitioner for submitting fabricated and misrepresented legal citations in his filings. The court explicitly identified that the petitioner cited a non-existent case and misattributed authority, reminding the petitioner of his certification obligations under V.R.C.P. 11(b) and the requirement to provide accurate legal contentions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's brief cites a non-existent Vermont decision 'Paige v. State, 2023 VT 66, ¶ 17'; the court found no such citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'State v. Benjamin, 173 Vt. 275, 279-80 (2001)', but the pin cite corresponds to State v. Garbutt, 173 Vt. 277, 279 (2001); the correct Benjamin decision addressing revocation is 2007 VT 52.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Vermont SC, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Case Law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Criminal
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was before the Vermont Superior Court, Civil Division, on Respondents' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the petition.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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
The court editor's note mentions unverified citations likely generated by AI tools.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.