AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesRobbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart
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 85/100. 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

Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart

5th Cir. CA · Nov 13, 2025

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontractappellateWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Fifth Circuit issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for citing nonexistent cases and misrepresenting legal authorities in her appellate brief. The court affirmed the underlying dismissal of her claims and cautioned that continued use of fabricated citations would lead to future sanctions.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Succession of Faget' as '838 So.2d 86 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003)', but that citation does not appear and does not support the proposition she attributed to it; court noted the inaccuracy.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 5th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In this appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se litigant's claims against a finance company. The court specifically addressed the appellant's repeated inclusion of fictitious legal citations in her appellate brief. The court noted that the appellant's citations did not correspond to actual cases or failed to support the propositions for which they were cited, including a specific misattribution of 'Succession of Faget.' The court emphasized that pro se litigants are bound by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to provide accurate citations. While the court declined to impose immediate monetary sanctions, it issued a formal warning that future infractions involving fabricated authorities or frivolous filings would result in sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 5th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

Court5th Cir. CA
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateNov 13, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court affirmed the lower court's dismissal and issued a formal warning regarding the use of fabricated citations.
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

Appellate review of a district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Succession of Faget' as '838 So.2d 86 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003)', but that citation does not appear and does not support the proposition she attributed to it; court noted the inaccuracy.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart?
The Fifth Circuit issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for citing nonexistent cases and misrepresenting legal authorities in her appellate brief. The court affirmed the underlying dismissal of her claims and cautioned that continued use of fabricated citations would lead to future sanctions.
Why does Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 5th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart?
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 Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart 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.

Reginald Grant v. Amazon.com Services, L.L.C.5th Cir. CA · Jun 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKisha Peters v. Banner Health5th Cir. CA · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsIn the Matter of Ikechukwu H. Okorie5th Cir. CA · Apr 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsUnited States v. Jose Marquez5th Cir. CA · Apr 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsWRI Summit REIT LP v. KuerschnerCA Arizona (1d) · Aug 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)First Community Credit Union v. Ashley SmithCA Wisconsin · Jul 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)