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.
Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.
E.D. Michigan · Oct 30, 2025
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff twice cited 'Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 166 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D. Mich. 1996)' to argue depositions should not proceed; the court found this a 'phantom' citation and noted the actual existing opinion is Hamm v. Nasatka Barriers Inc., 166 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1996), which does not mention depositions. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff twice cited 'Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 166 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D. Mich. 1996)' to argue depositions should not proceed; the court found this a 'phantom' citation and noted the actual existing opinion is Hamm v. Nasatka Barriers Inc., 166 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1996), which does not mention depositions.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff twice cited 'Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 166 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D. Mich. 1996)' to argue depositions should not proceed; the court found this a 'phantom' citation and noted the actual existing opinion is Hamm v. Nasatka Barriers Inc., 166 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1996), which does not mention depositions. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateOct 30, 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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff twice cited 'Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 166 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D. Mich. 1996)' to argue depositions should not proceed; the court found this a 'phantom' citation and noted the actual existing opinion is Hamm v. Nasatka Barriers Inc., 166 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1996), which does not mention depositions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff twice cited 'Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 166 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D. Mich. 1996)' to argue depositions should not proceed; the court found this a 'phantom' citation and noted the actual existing opinion is Hamm v. Nasatka Barriers Inc., 166 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1996), which does not mention depositions. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.?
- 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 Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. 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.