AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesState of Missouri v. Timothy H. Moore
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

State of Missouri v. Timothy H. Moore

CA Missouri · Jun 30, 2026

MO / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycriminalCase Dismissed
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of a pro se litigant after finding his brief contained three fictitious cases, thirteen irrelevant citations, and five improper pin-citations to non-legal sections of case reporters. The court determined these errors violated the duty of candor and rendered meaningful review impossible.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Three citations in Moore's brief were completely fictitious (nonexistent cases) as identified by the court..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In State of Missouri v. Timothy H. Moore, the CA Missouri addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that three citations in Moore's brief were completely fictitious (nonexistent cases) as identified by the court. The recorded procedural consequence is Appeal Dismissed. The entry is dated 2026-06-30. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

MissouriSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MOOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Missouri
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateJun 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAppeal dismissed.
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

Appellate review of a circuit court conviction for exceeding the speed limit; appeal dismissed by the Missouri Court of Appeals.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Three citations in Moore's brief were completely fictitious (nonexistent cases) as identified by the court.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Thirteen citations cited cases that bore no relation to the legal issues for which they were cited.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Five cases were pin-cited to pages that are in the Factual and Procedural History or West Headnotes sections, not to legal propositions or holdings.

Questions this record answers

What happened in State of Missouri v. Timothy H. Moore?
The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of a pro se litigant after finding his brief contained three fictitious cases, thirteen irrelevant citations, and five improper pin-citations to non-legal sections of case reporters. The court determined these errors violated the duty of candor and rendered meaningful review impossible.
Why does State of Missouri v. Timothy H. Moore matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about State of Missouri v. Timothy H. Moore?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this State of Missouri v. Timothy H. Moore 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.

Whitehead v. MooreCA Missouri · Aug 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBoatner v. HickersonCA Missouri · Jun 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHayes v. MillerCA Missouri · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + appellateState v. DixonCA Oregon · Jul 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)City of Shaker Heights v. Andre D. ThompsonCA Ohio (8d) · May 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)United States v. Jose Marquez5th Cir. CA · Apr 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)