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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Stewart v Good Shepherd
Victoria CA · Aug 29, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The applicant's written submissions included 'non-existent authority' citations (fabricated cases/authorities); the judge noted these as phantom authorities and said their inclusion did not help the applicant.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Victoria CA calls AI citations 'phantom authorities'; flag any unverifiable cite to opposing pro-se litigants immediately.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The applicant's written submissions included 'non-existent authority' citations (fabricated cases/authorities); the judge noted these as phantom authorities and said their inclusion did not help the applicant.
Operational lesson
Victoria CA calls AI citations 'phantom authorities'; flag any unverifiable cite to opposing pro-se litigants immediately.
Record details
CourtVictoria CA
Jurisdictioninternational
Circuit9th Circuit
DateAug 29, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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 | The applicant's written submissions included 'non-existent authority' citations (fabricated cases/authorities); the judge noted these as phantom authorities and said their inclusion did not help the applicant.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The applicant cited real authorities but relied on passages that bore no relationship to the arguments, which the judge described as misplaced or misapplied references.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Stewart v Good Shepherd?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The applicant's written submissions included 'non-existent authority' citations (fabricated cases/authorities); the judge noted these as phantom authorities and said their inclusion did not help the applicant.
- Why does Stewart v Good Shepherd matter for legal AI risk?
- Victoria CA calls AI citations 'phantom authorities'; flag any unverifiable cite to opposing pro-se litigants immediately.
- What does the public record establish about Stewart v Good Shepherd?
- 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 Stewart v Good Shepherd 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.