Which source supports this XX v. YY summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases Database. It is classified as source link missing; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesXX v. YY

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 61/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

XX v. YY

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0). What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

CA Maryland · Jun 16, 2026

MD / state Editorial impact: high fake citations fabricated quotes misrepresented authority bar referral Bar Referral Professional

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Father cites North v. North for a proposition that is not found in that case. Outcome: Bar Referral. Case No. C-16-FM-24-009497

Why the court cared: The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Bar Referral. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Bar Referral in CA Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Misrepresented: Case Law | Father cites North v. North for a proposition that is not found in that case. Outcome: Bar Referral. Case No. C-16-FM-24-009497

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Bar Referral in CA Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MarylandSingle-state evidence scope

Explore MDOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtCA Maryland

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit4th Circuit

DateJun 16, 2026

AI toolNo tool named in source

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBar Referral

Known amountNot recorded

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

Bar Referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Father cites North v. North for a proposition that is not found in that case.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Father cites Taylor v. Taylor for a proposition that is not found in that case.
False Quotes: Case Law | A quotation attributed to Boswell v. Boswell does not appear in that opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | A quoted passage on page 27 is attributed to Taylor but does not appear in that case or any other opinion.
Fabricated: Case Law | Father's brief on page iv cites three cases 'that do not exist as cited.'
Misrepresented: Case Law | Proposition attributed to Montgomery County Dept. of Social Services v. Sanders is overstated and not supported by that case.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Propositions attributed to Ross v. Hoffman and In re Yve S. are not found in those cases as cited.

Questions this record answers

What happened in XX v. YY?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Father cites North v. North for a proposition that is not found in that case. Outcome: Bar Referral. Case No. C-16-FM-24-009497
Why does XX v. YY matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Bar Referral in CA Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about XX v. YY?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. No underlying public source link is currently recorded. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this XX v. YY summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases Database. It is classified as source link missing; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases Database

Source link missing
No source URL is recorded.

No public source link is currently available.

Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Nov 2, 2026 · Published Nov 2, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Nov 2, 2026; latest tracked decision Oct 28, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA Maryland profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. No underlying public source link is currently recorded. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, Case Record: XX v. YY (June 16, 2026), Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Nov. 2, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/xx-v-yy-2026-06-16 (last visited Nov. 2, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, November 2). Case Record: XX v. YY (June 16, 2026). Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved November 2, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/xx-v-yy-2026-06-16
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/cases/xx-v-yy-2026-06-16 (accessed 2026-11-02)

Cites the AI Vortex page, not the underlying decision; cite the court's own document for the holding.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.