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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
M.D. Georgia · Jul 14, 2025
GA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 1 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. Outcome: Monetary sanction; CLE requirement; Adverse Costs Order. Plaintiff's Counsel cited nine non-existent cases in a response to a motion to dismiss, which were generated using AI software. The court found this to be a violation of Rule 11, as the citations were not checked for accuracy. Counsel admitted the error, apologized, and explained the circumstances, including staff transitions and the use of AI. The court imposed a $1000 sanction, required Mr.…
- 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; CLE requirement; Adverse Costs Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Staff transitions are no excuse; require a partner-level signoff verifying every cited case exists before any brief is filed.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 1 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. Outcome: Monetary sanction; CLE requirement; Adverse Costs Order. Plaintiff's Counsel cited nine non-existent cases in a response to a motion to dismiss, which were generated using AI software. The court found this to be a violation of Rule 11, as the citations were not checked for accuracy. Counsel admitted the error, apologized, and explained the circumstances, including staff transitions and the use of AI. The court imposed a $1000 sanction, required Mr. Braddy to attend a CLE course on AI ethics, and ordered reimbursement of Defendant's attorney fees and costs.
Operational lesson
Staff transitions are no excuse; require a partner-level signoff verifying every cited case exists before any brief is filed.
Record details
GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtM.D. Georgia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateJul 14, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary sanction; CLE requirement; Adverse Costs Order
Known amount$1,000
Professional sanctionYes
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
Monetary sanction; CLE requirement; Adverse Costs Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
9 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 1 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 2 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 3 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 4 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 5 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 6 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 7 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 8 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
Show 1 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 9 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent case citation 1 of 9 in Plaintiff’s MTD Response; neither the Court nor opposing counsel could locate it; Court deemed it a hallucinated case. Outcome: Monetary sanction; CLE requirement; Adverse Costs Order. Plaintiff's Counsel cited nine non-existent cases in a response to a motion to dismiss, which were generated using AI software. The court found this to be a violation of Rule 11, as the citations were not checked for accuracy. Counsel admitted the error, apologized, and explained the circumstances, including staff transitions and the use of AI. The court imposed a $1000 sanction, required Mr.…
- Why does Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company matter for legal AI risk?
- Staff transitions are no excuse; require a partner-level signoff verifying every cited case exists before any brief is filed.
- What does the public record establish about Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company?
- 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 Woodrow Jackson v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company 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.