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.
Suday v. Suday
CA Texas · Jan 14, 2026
TX / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilyappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. Outcome: Warning. The court found that nearly all caselaw cited in the appellant's supplemental brief could not be located and appears fictitious; the court suggested the use of an AI tool but chose to address the merits and issued a caution about reliance on such tools.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Garrison v. Garrison, 966 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Ex parte Hudson, 11 U.S. 225, 234 (1812)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Sabir v. Daud, No. 01-22-00956-CV, 2024 WL 3478110, at 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 18, 2024, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Douglas v. Douglas, 454 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1970, no writ)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Woodard v. Andrus, 419 S.W.3d 226, 234 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. denied)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Texas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. Outcome: Warning. The court found that nearly all caselaw cited in the appellant's supplemental brief could not be located and appears fictitious; the court suggested the use of an AI tool but chose to address the merits and issued a caution about reliance on such tools.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Texas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
TexasSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Texas
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit5th Circuit
DateJan 14, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
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
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Garrison v. Garrison, 966 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Ex parte Hudson, 11 U.S. 225, 234 (1812)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Sabir v. Daud, No. 01-22-00956-CV, 2024 WL 3478110, at 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 18, 2024, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Douglas v. Douglas, 454 S.W.2d 225, 227 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1970, no writ)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Woodard v. Andrus, 419 S.W.3d 226, 234 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet. denied)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Suday v. Suday?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Supplemental brief cited 'Varela v. Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)', which court could not locate and deemed likely fictitious. Outcome: Warning. The court found that nearly all caselaw cited in the appellant's supplemental brief could not be located and appears fictitious; the court suggested the use of an AI tool but chose to address the merits and issued a caution about reliance on such tools.
- Why does Suday v. Suday matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Texas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Suday v. Suday?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Suday v. Suday 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.