HomeCasesWilliam C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith

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.

Corpus matter record

William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith

S.D. Indiana · May 26, 2026

IN / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescivil rights

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff presented 28 quotations attributed to real cases that do not appear in those cited opinions; Plaintiff admitted the quotes were incorrect, calling many 'paraphrases.' Court found this insufficient and included these false quotations in the Rule to Show Cause. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Order to Show Cause is here.

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in S.D. Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtS.D. Indiana

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateMay 26, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$1,000

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

Monetary Sanction

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.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff presented 28 quotations attributed to real cases that do not appear in those cited opinions; Plaintiff admitted the quotes were incorrect, calling many 'paraphrases.' Court found this insufficient and included these false quotations in the Rule to Show Cause.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited nine cases that do not appear to exist (non‑existent case citations); Court treated these as fabricated citations and included them in the Rule to Show Cause.

Questions this record answers

What happened in William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith?: False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff presented 28 quotations attributed to real cases that do not appear in those cited opinions; Plaintiff admitted the quotes were incorrect, calling many 'paraphrases.' Court found this insufficient and included these false quotations in the Rule to Show Cause. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Order to Show Cause is here.
Why does William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in S.D. Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith?: 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 William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith 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.

Philip D. Dennison v. June Caudill et al.S.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Jana James v. National Board of Osteopathic Examiners, Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Michael Platt v. Volunteers of America Ohio & IndianaS.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Davis v. Marion County Juvenile Detention CenterS.D. Indiana · May 20, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance CorporationS.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

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

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtS.D. Indiana

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateMay 26, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$1,000

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited nine cases that do not appear to exist (non‑existent case citations); Court treated these as fabricated citations and included them in the Rule to Show Cause.

Questions this record answers

What happened in William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith?

Why does William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith?

Which source supports this William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey Smith 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.