HomeCasesSlay v. Ross

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Slay v. Ross

CA Georgia · Mar 9, 2026

GA / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfamilyappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Waller v. Waller, 288 Ga. 164, 164-165 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; court noted as an example of AI-generated bogus citation. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Four fabricated citations in one brief is a pattern, not a typo; require a verification log before any appellate filing leaves the firm.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Four fabricated citations in one brief is a pattern, not a typo; require a verification log before any appellate filing leaves the firm.

Record details

GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Georgia

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit11th Circuit

DateMar 9, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Waller v. Waller, 288 Ga. 164, 164-165 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; court noted as an example of AI-generated bogus citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Johnson v. Johnson, 286 Ga. 720, 721 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; cited as part of the pattern of hallucinated cases.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Durden v. Barron, 287 Ga. 858 (2010), which the court determined does not actually exist and flagged as a bogus citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited In re Waitz, 255 Ga. 474 (1986), which the court identified as another nonexistent authority in the brief.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Slay v. Ross?: Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Waller v. Waller, 288 Ga. 164, 164-165 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; court noted as an example of AI-generated bogus citation. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Slay v. Ross matter for legal AI risk?: Four fabricated citations in one brief is a pattern, not a typo; require a verification log before any appellate filing leaves the firm.
What does the public record establish about Slay v. Ross?: 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 Slay v. Ross 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.

Kim v. WexelCA Georgia · Jun 24, 2026same court · fake citations + family Washington v. WashingtonCA Georgia · Jun 4, 2026same court · fake citations + family Broyles v. McNealCA Georgia · May 8, 2026same court · fake citations + family Shahid v. EsaamCA Georgia · Jun 30, 2025same court · fake citations + family Henry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al.CA Georgia · Jun 10, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Hicks v. City of AlbanyCA Georgia · Feb 26, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Four fabricated citations in one brief is a pattern, not a typo; require a verification log before any appellate filing leaves the firm.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Waller v. Waller, 288 Ga. 164, 164-165 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; court noted as an example of AI-generated bogus citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Johnson v. Johnson, 286 Ga. 720, 721 (2010), which the court found to be fictitious; cited as part of the pattern of hallucinated cases.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited Durden v. Barron, 287 Ga. 858 (2010), which the court determined does not actually exist and flagged as a bogus citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited In re Waitz, 255 Ga. 474 (1986), which the court identified as another nonexistent authority in the brief.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Slay v. Ross?

Why does Slay v. Ross matter for legal AI risk?

Four fabricated citations in one brief is a pattern, not a typo; require a verification log before any appellate filing leaves the firm.

What does the public record establish about Slay v. Ross?

Which source supports this Slay v. Ross 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.