COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

5th Cir. CA

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

Matched records8

Source linked100%

Known USD amount totalNone recorded

Recorded rangeNov 13, 2025 – Oct 9, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in 5th Cir. CA?

AI Vortex currently links 8 source-linked public matters associated with 5th Cir. CA. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (6), Fabricated or altered quotations (4) and Misrepresented authority (4). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (5), No adjudicated consequence recorded (3) and Filing or pleading struck (1). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the court.

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?

Fabricated authorities6 · 75%Fabricated or altered quotations4 · 50%Misrepresented authority4 · 50%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

Warning or admonishment5 · 62.5%No adjudicated consequence recorded3 · 37.5%Filing or pleading struck1 · 12.5%

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

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Pro Se Litigant7 · 87.5%Lawyer1 · 12.5%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Employment2 · 25%Bankruptcy1 · 12.5%Civil Rights1 · 12.5%Contract1 · 12.5%Criminal1 · 12.5%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 8 of 8

Oct 9, 2026Cox v. Mitchell5th Cir. CAUnidentifiedSource

Sep 24, 2026Bourrage v. Sollie5th Cir. CANo tool named in sourceSource

Aug 14, 2026Guerra-Quezada v. United States; Guerra-Vasquez v. United States (consolidated)5th Cir. CANo tool named in sourceSource

Jun 25, 2026Reginald Grant v. Amazon.com Services, L.L.C.5th Cir. CAUnidentifiedSource

Jun 4, 2026Kisha Peters v. Banner Health5th Cir. CAAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Apr 29, 2026In the Matter of Ikechukwu H. Okorie5th Cir. CAUnidentifiedSource

Apr 24, 2026United States v. Jose Marquez5th Cir. CANo tool named in sourceSource

Nov 13, 2025Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart5th Cir. CANo tool named in sourceSource

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.

CONNECTED INTELLIGENCE

Related corpus profiles

United States8 shared records Fake Citations6 shared records Warning5 shared records Misrepresented Authority4 shared records Fabricated Quotes4 shared records None Adjudicated3 shared records

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, 5th Cir. CA Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 27, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/5th-cir-ca/report (last visited Oct. 27, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, October 27). 5th Cir. CA Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 27, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/5th-cir-ca/report
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/5th-cir-ca/report (accessed 2026-10-27)

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