AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 4, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 1, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesThompson v. County of San Diego
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Thompson v. County of San Diego

CA California (4d) · Jul 14, 2026

CA / stateEditorial impact: lowfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityotherappellateNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Stevens did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error. Outcome: Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority and records Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations in CA California (4d). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Stevens did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error. Outcome: Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations in CA California (4d). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA California (4d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJul 14, 2026
LE
AI toolLexis+ with Protégé
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCounsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

Lexis+ with Protégé is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Stevens did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Harris did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error.
  3. False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Buxbom did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error.
  4. False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Scott did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error.
  5. False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Miklosy did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error.
  6. False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Hager did not appear in the opinion; opposing counsel had previously identified the problem, and counsel withdrew the quotation and related arguments.
  7. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel disclosed that the reply brief relied on citations and characterizations that the cited opinion did not support.
  8. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel disclosed and disavowed unsupported citations and characterizations involving Hager in the reply brief beyond the quotation already identified by the Court.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
  1. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel disclosed that the reply brief relied on citations and characterizations that the cited opinion did not support.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel disclosed that the reply brief relied on citations and characterizations that the cited opinion did not support.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Thompson v. County of San Diego?
False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel admitted that a quotation attributed to Stevens did not appear in the opinion and withdrew it after the Court identified the error. Outcome: Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations.
Why does Thompson v. County of San Diego matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fabricated quotes and misrepresented authority with Counsel withdrew the unsupported quotations and citations in CA California (4d). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Thompson v. County of San Diego?
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 Thompson v. County of San Diego 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.

Suva v. SuvaCA California (4d) · Aug 11, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityDel Biaggio v. BansenCA California (4d) · Jul 10, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityPatterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityTrina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityIn re Violet G.CA California (2d) · Sep 16, 2026same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityQuinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLCCA California (1d) · Jun 11, 2026same jurisdiction · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority