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.
Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia
CA California · Feb 26, 2026
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a nonexistent case 'Medical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459, 475' and attributed multiple due-process quotations to it; court found no such published case or quotations and labeled them AI 'hallucinations.' Outcome: Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal..
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a nonexistent case 'Medical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459, 475' and attributed multiple due-process quotations to it; court found no such published case or quotations and labeled them AI 'hallucinations.' || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief quoted 'Admitting a transcript without the original recording is reversible error.' and cited People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 475; court found the quotation does not exist and Panah reached the opposite conclusion. || Fabricated: Other | The brief contained 12 quotations (11 fabricated) and numerous inaccurate or inapposite citations (some reporter citations corresponding to different criminal cases); court characterized the brief as 'peppered with inaccurate citations' and AI-generated fabrications.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal..
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a nonexistent case 'Medical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459, 475' and attributed multiple due-process quotations to it; court found no such published case or quotations and labeled them AI 'hallucinations.' Outcome: Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal..
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal..
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAppeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal.
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
Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal.
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 | Opening brief cited a nonexistent case 'Medical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459, 475' and attributed multiple due-process quotations to it; court found no such published case or quotations and labeled them AI 'hallucinations.'
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief quoted 'Admitting a transcript without the original recording is reversible error.' and cited People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 475; court found the quotation does not exist and Panah reached the opposite conclusion.
- Fabricated: Other | The brief contained 12 quotations (11 fabricated) and numerous inaccurate or inapposite citations (some reporter citations corresponding to different criminal cases); court characterized the brief as 'peppered with inaccurate citations' and AI-generated fabrications.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a nonexistent case 'Medical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459, 475' and attributed multiple due-process quotations to it; court found no such published case or quotations and labeled them AI 'hallucinations.' Outcome: Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal..
- Why does Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Appeal dismissed; appellant to bear her own costs on appeal..
- What does the public record establish about Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia?
- 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 Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia 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.