Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1MPVGLUGenerated September 24, 2026Evidence checked Sep 24, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.

S.D. Indiana · Sep 11, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
S.D. Indiana
Record ID
virgil-v-experian-information-solutions-et-al-2026-09-11
Observed outcome
Monetary Sanction
Known monetary consequence
$10,000
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2013); court found this citation does not exist. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Judge adopted recommendations (here).

Why the decision-maker cared

The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Monetary Sanction. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.

Why it matters now

This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Monetary Sanction in S.D. Indiana. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Other
  • Trial
  • Monetary
  • Professional
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
$10,000
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.