AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 9, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSimpson v. Porter
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Simpson v. Porter

SC Arkansas · Oct 1, 2026

AR / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsothertrialOrdered To Show Cause
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The petition cited Biscoe v. Williams, 373 Ark. 336 (2008), but the court found no Arkansas case by that name; the citation led to the unrelated case Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333, 284 S.W.3d 17 (2008). The court suspected the authority was AI-hallucinated. Outcome: Order to show cause.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Order to show cause. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to show cause in SC Arkansas. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The petition cited Biscoe v. Williams, 373 Ark. 336 (2008), but the court found no Arkansas case by that name; the citation led to the unrelated case Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333, 284 S.W.3d 17 (2008). The court suspected the authority was AI-hallucinated. Outcome: Order to show cause.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to show cause in SC Arkansas. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

ArkansasSingle-state evidence scope
Explore AROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC Arkansas
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateOct 1, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOrder to show cause
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

Order to show cause

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 | The petition cited Biscoe v. Williams, 373 Ark. 336 (2008), but the court found no Arkansas case by that name; the citation led to the unrelated case Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333, 284 S.W.3d 17 (2008). The court suspected the authority was AI-hallucinated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Simpson v. Porter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The petition cited Biscoe v. Williams, 373 Ark. 336 (2008), but the court found no Arkansas case by that name; the citation led to the unrelated case Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333, 284 S.W.3d 17 (2008). The court suspected the authority was AI-hallucinated. Outcome: Order to show cause.
Why does Simpson v. Porter matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Order to show cause in SC Arkansas. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Simpson v. Porter?
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 Simpson v. Porter 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.

Arkansas DHS v. April Ward and Minor Child RespondentsSC Arkansas · Feb 5, 2026same court · fake citations + otherNicholas Evan Nesbitt v. Trans Union, LLC, et al.W.D. Arkansas · Aug 11, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsChristina Leas Dunn v. NelnetW.D. Arkansas · Feb 25, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsMary Stephens v. Helena-West Helena School DistrictE.D. Arkansas · Jan 20, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsSanchez v. Synchrony Bank N.A.S.D. California · Oct 1, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Robinson v. Dikeland Sewer DistrictW.D. Missouri · Sep 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)