Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CONSEQUENCE EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-128OWTAGenerated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 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 records93
Source linked100%
Known amount total$269,821
Recorded rangeJan 2, 2025 Sep 4, 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 93 source-linked public matters that record Struck Filing. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (83), Fabricated or altered quotations (47) and Misrepresented authority (44). Recorded responses and outcomes include Filing or pleading struck (93), Monetary sanction (32) 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 93
Sep 4, 2026Wurm v. Anchor Bay Packaging CorporationE.D. MichiganAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Aug 26, 2026Noella P. Turgeon v. FHLMCD. New HampshireAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Aug 25, 2026Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Abhishek KumarSolicitors Disciplinary TribunalUnidentifiedSource
Aug 18, 2026Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (2)W.D. WashingtonClaude and ChatGPTSource
Aug 18, 2026Kourradi v. ChristopherCA TexasAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Aug 14, 2026Boettcher v. BoettcherCA ArizonaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Aug 11, 2026Eyong v. 72 Barrow St. Realty Corp.AC MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jul 30, 2026Cole v. LeeCA IllinoisAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jul 21, 2026Evans v. Robertson (4)E.D. MichiganAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jul 20, 2026Khan v. Howard County BAPCA MarylandAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jul 16, 2026בדש נ' אוחנהMagistrate's Court, Tel Aviv-JaffaUnidentifiedSource
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.