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.
T.M. v. M.M.
CA Indiana · Sep 24, 2025
IN / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited a quotation supposedly supporting judicial estoppel that the court found is not present in the cited case. Outcome: Warning. The Court preserved the invalid citations in the opinion as they are part of the record, admonished that fabricated or incorrect citations frustrate review and may lead to reprimand or sanction.
- 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
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited a quotation supposedly supporting judicial estoppel that the court found is not present in the cited case. Outcome: Warning. The Court preserved the invalid citations in the opinion as they are part of the record, admonished that fabricated or incorrect citations frustrate review and may lead to reprimand or sanction.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
IndianaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Indiana
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateSep 24, 2025
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
8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited a quotation supposedly supporting judicial estoppel that the court found is not present in the cited case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'Reynolds v. State' as authority; the court found the case does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Robison v. Orthopedic & Sports Medicine Center' with a reporter citation that the court states does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on purported authority 'Bill v. Bill' which the court found to be non-existent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Wann v. Wann' as controlling authority; the court states the cited case does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'A.H.L. v. C.Y.L.' which the court determined is not a real reported decision.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant mischaracterized the content/purpose of a statute, citing Ind. Code § 33-25-1-2 as establishing appellate jurisdiction when it establishes court districts.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Appellant cited transcript page references that the court found do not support the assertions (various transcript page citations mis-cited).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in T.M. v. M.M.?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited a quotation supposedly supporting judicial estoppel that the court found is not present in the cited case. Outcome: Warning. The Court preserved the invalid citations in the opinion as they are part of the record, admonished that fabricated or incorrect citations frustrate review and may lead to reprimand or sanction.
- Why does T.M. v. M.M. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in CA Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about T.M. v. M.M.?
- 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 T.M. v. M.M. 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.