HomeCasesWilt v. Department of the Navy

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Wilt v. Department of the Navy

E.D. Texas · May 2, 2025

TX / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sanchez v. United States to claim FTCA permits redress for systemic negligence; the court found no such N.D. Tex. 1992 case at 803 F. Supp. 1066 and said it appears AI-generated. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. Texas

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit5th Circuit

DateMay 2, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

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 | Plaintiff cited Sanchez v. United States to claim FTCA permits redress for systemic negligence; the court found no such N.D. Tex. 1992 case at 803 F. Supp. 1066 and said it appears AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Wilkerson v. University of N. Tex. to allow substitution of the proper Title VII defendant; the court found no such 1989 Fifth Circuit case at 878 F.2d 276 and said it appears AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wilt v. Department of the Navy?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sanchez v. United States to claim FTCA permits redress for systemic negligence; the court found no such N.D. Tex. 1992 case at 803 F. Supp. 1066 and said it appears AI-generated. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Wilt v. Department of the Navy matter for legal AI risk?: Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.
What does the public record establish about Wilt v. Department of the Navy?: 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 Wilt v. Department of the Navy 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.

McCormick v. Texakoma FinancialE.D. Texas · Jun 11, 2026same court · fake citations + tort David R. Pete v. United States Department of Justice, et al.E.D. Texas · Oct 10, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Pete v. Houston Methodist HospitalE.D. Texas · Sep 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations John Hurt v. Ampcus, Inc.E.D. Texas · Jul 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations David R. Pete v. Greg Abbott, et al.E.D. Texas · Jun 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Fabian Antonio Thomas v. Officer Skylar Sillivent, et al.E.D. Texas · Mar 2, 2026same 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

Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Wilkerson v. University of N. Tex. to allow substitution of the proper Title VII defendant; the court found no such 1989 Fifth Circuit case at 878 F.2d 276 and said it appears AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wilt v. Department of the Navy?

Why does Wilt v. Department of the Navy matter for legal AI risk?

Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.

What does the public record establish about Wilt v. Department of the Navy?

Which source supports this Wilt v. Department of the Navy 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.