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.
Ruggierlo et al. v. Lancaster
E.D. Michigan · Sep 11, 2023
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Lancaster cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case, which the Court explained was a mutant citation blending a Michigan Supreme Court case with a Fifth Circuit reporter cite. Outcome: No sanction; Formal Judicial Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The Court emphasized that unverified, fabricated legal citations undermine the judicial process and waste both judicial and litigant resources. Even without clear evidence of malicious intent, negligence in checking citations is sanctionable. Rule 11 duties apply fully to pro se litigants
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with No sanction; Formal Judicial Warning in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Lancaster cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case, which the Court explained was a mutant citation blending a Michigan Supreme Court case with a Fifth Circuit reporter cite. Outcome: No sanction; Formal Judicial Warning.
AI Use
Lancaster, filing objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, cited several fabricated case authorities. The Court noted the possibility of reliance on a generative AI tool and explicitly warned Lancaster about future misconduct.
Hallucination Details
Fabricated or mutant citations, including:Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 961 F.3d 734 (6th Cir. 2020) — mutant citation blending two unrelated real casesMaldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 720 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2013) — nonexistentMalliaras & Poulos, P.C. v. City of Center Line, 788 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 2015) — nonexistentCourt highlighted that the majority of the cited cases in Lancaster’s objections were fake.
Ruling/Sanction
No immediate sanction imposed due to pro se status and lack of prior warnings. However, the Court issued a pointed warning that citing "made-up law" could lead to significant sanctions, either in that Court or any other court to which the case might be remanded.
Key Judicial Reasoning
The Court emphasized that unverified, fabricated legal citations undermine the judicial process and waste both judicial and litigant resources. Even without clear evidence of malicious intent, negligence in checking citations is sanctionable. Rule 11 duties apply fully to pro se litigants.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with No sanction; Formal Judicial Warning in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateSep 11, 2023
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeNo sanction; Formal Judicial Warning
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
No sanction; Formal Judicial 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 | Lancaster cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case, which the Court explained was a mutant citation blending a Michigan Supreme Court case with a Fifth Circuit reporter cite.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Lancaster cited a case the Court noted does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Lancaster cited a Sixth Circuit case the Court stated does not exist.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ruggierlo et al. v. Lancaster?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Lancaster cited a nonexistent Sixth Circuit case, which the Court explained was a mutant citation blending a Michigan Supreme Court case with a Fifth Circuit reporter cite. Outcome: No sanction; Formal Judicial Warning.
- Why does Ruggierlo et al. v. Lancaster matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with No sanction; Formal Judicial Warning in E.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Ruggierlo et al. v. Lancaster?
- 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 Ruggierlo et al. v. Lancaster 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.