Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CONSEQUENCE EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-128OWTAGenerated October 27, 2026Evidence checked Oct 26, 2026
CONSEQUENCE EVIDENCE REPORT

Struck Filing

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records100
Source linked100%
Known USD amount total$337,191.90
Recorded rangeJan 2, 2025 – Oct 8, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What issues appear in matters recording Struck Filing?

Taxonomy definition: A filing, pleading, brief, citation, or submission was struck or ordered removed from the record.

AI Vortex currently links 100 source-linked public matters that record Struck Filing. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (89), Fabricated or altered quotations (50) and Misrepresented authority (49). Recorded responses and outcomes include Filing or pleading struck (100), Monetary sanction (33) and Warning or admonishment (13). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the consequence.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.
OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.
RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.
PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 100
Oct 8, 2026Avargil et al. v. Yaakov et al.MC Nof HaGalil-NazarethUnidentifiedSource
Oct 7, 2026Butler v. The Travelers Indemnity CompanySC ConnecticutNo tool named in sourceSource
Oct 2, 2026Shannon v. ShannonSC NebraskaUnidentifiedSource
Sep 28, 2026Verduzco v. Con Agra Foods Packaged Foods, LLCE.D. CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Sep 4, 2026Wurm v. Anchor Bay Packaging CorporationE.D. MichiganNo tool named in sourceSource
Aug 26, 2026Noella P. Turgeon v. FHLMCD. New HampshireNo tool named in sourceSource
Aug 18, 2026Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (2)W.D. WashingtonClaude and ChatGPTSource
Aug 18, 2026Kourradi v. ChristopherCA TexasNo tool named in sourceSource
Aug 14, 2026Boettcher v. BoettcherCA ArizonaNo tool named in sourceSource
Aug 11, 2026Eyong v. 72 Barrow St. Realty Corp.AC MarylandNo tool named in sourceSource
Jul 30, 2026Cole v. LeeCA IllinoisUnidentifiedSource
Open all matching records
EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.

Cite this page

Bluebook

AI Vortex, Struck Filing Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 26, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/consequences/struck-filing/report (last visited Oct. 26, 2026).

APA

AI Vortex. (2026, October 26). Struck Filing Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/consequences/struck-filing/report

URL

https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/consequences/struck-filing/report (accessed 2026-10-26)

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