HomeCasesWhyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al.

S.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2026

FL / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | One of two case citations in Plaintiffs' original motion was identified by Defendants as a 'hallucinated' (fabricated) case citation; the amended motion removed it and the court did not analyze the citation on the merits.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and tort involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in S.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and tort involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in S.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

FloridaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. Florida

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit11th Circuit

DateJul 13, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | One of two case citations in Plaintiffs' original motion was identified by Defendants as a 'hallucinated' (fabricated) case citation; the amended motion removed it and the court did not analyze the citation on the merits.
Fabricated: Case Law | The second case citation in Plaintiffs' original motion was likewise identified by Defendants as 'hallucinated' (fabricated); it was omitted from the corrected amended motion and received no substantive judicial analysis.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | One of two case citations in Plaintiffs' original motion was identified by Defendants as a 'hallucinated' (fabricated) case citation; the amended motion removed it and the court did not analyze the citation on the merits.
Why does Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and tort involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in S.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al.?: 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 Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al. 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.

Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.S.D. Florida · Feb 19, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Lindsey Newell v. The Law Offices of Travis R. Walker, et al.S.D. Florida · Feb 13, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawleyS.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Ralph J. Massetti, Jr. v. Greenspring Capital Management, LLC, et al.S.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Ayatollah Hylton v. Chivone Janee Hylton, et al.S.D. Florida · Jan 5, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Arch Insurance Company v. A3 Development, LLCS.D. Florida · Oct 21, 2025same court · fake citations + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | The second case citation in Plaintiffs' original motion was likewise identified by Defendants as 'hallucinated' (fabricated); it was omitted from the corrected amended motion and received no substantive judicial analysis.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al.?

Why does Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al.?

Which source supports this Whyte et al. v. MK United, Inc. et al. 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.