Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0OITL3VGenerated August 23, 2026Evidence checked Aug 23, 2026
PUBLIC ALLEGATION RECORD

Wilkinson v. Schmelzer

CA Iowa · Aug 19, 2026

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Iowa
Record ID
wilkinson-v-schmelzer-2026-08-19
Observed outcome
No sanctions
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant's briefs referenced the nonexistent procedural rule "Iowa R. App. P. 6.1004(3)"; court noted it could be a typo or unchecked AI output and found no other hallucinated authorities. Outcome: No sanctions.

Why the decision-maker cared

The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records No sanctions. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.

Why it matters now

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with No sanctions in CA Iowa. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Family
  • Appellate
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
No sanctions
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 concerns a public allegation and does not establish an adjudicated finding. 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.

Allegation status: no adjudicated finding is represented by this brief.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Keep allegations separate from adjudicated findings in research, reporting, and client communications.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.