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.
Santree v. Eveangel Hines
CA North Carolina · Sep 17, 2025
NC / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritypublished opinion
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a State v. Boggess published in 1979 that does not exist; the court found no Supreme Court opinion by that name in 1979 (only a 2004 State v. Boggess exists and does not support her points). Outcome: Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument. Defendant's reply brief contained citations that did not support her arguments and included at least one non-existent case citation; the court concluded these errors suggest use of AI and treated the issues as abandonment under Rule 28(b)(6), dismissing the appeal.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument in CA North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a State v. Boggess published in 1979 that does not exist; the court found no Supreme Court opinion by that name in 1979 (only a 2004 State v. Boggess exists and does not support her points). Outcome: Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument. Defendant's reply brief contained citations that did not support her arguments and included at least one non-existent case citation; the court concluded these errors suggest use of AI and treated the issues as abandonment under Rule 28(b)(6), dismissing the appeal.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument in CA North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA North Carolina
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit4th Circuit
DateSep 17, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAppeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument
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 for lack of genuine argument
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a State v. Boggess published in 1979 that does not exist; the court found no Supreme Court opinion by that name in 1979 (only a 2004 State v. Boggess exists and does not support her points).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant attributed several legal propositions to Cheek v. Poole that the case does not state; court found Cheek does not support the cited propositions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Santree v. Eveangel Hines?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited a State v. Boggess published in 1979 that does not exist; the court found no Supreme Court opinion by that name in 1979 (only a 2004 State v. Boggess exists and does not support her points). Outcome: Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument. Defendant's reply brief contained citations that did not support her arguments and included at least one non-existent case citation; the court concluded these errors suggest use of AI and treated the issues as abandonment under Rule 28(b)(6), dismissing the appeal.
- Why does Santree v. Eveangel Hines matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Appeal dismissed for lack of genuine argument in CA North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Santree v. Eveangel Hines?
- 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 Santree v. Eveangel Hines 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.