Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
COURT EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-0EWUAD8Generated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 2026
COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

D. Connecticut

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

Matched records11
Source linked100%
Known amount total$4,000
Recorded rangeApr 30, 2025 Aug 5, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in D. Connecticut?

AI Vortex currently links 11 source-linked public matters associated with D. Connecticut. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Misrepresented authority (7), Fabricated authorities (6) and Fabricated or altered quotations (6). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (6), No adjudicated consequence recorded (3) and Monetary sanction (2). 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?

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 11 of 11
Aug 5, 2026Ulish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National AssociationD. ConnecticutGemini Pro; Perplexity; Cetient Legal AI; ChatGPTSource
Aug 4, 2026Barteca Holdings v. TacobarnD. ConnecticutOpen Law; Claude; ChatGPTSource
Aug 4, 2026Sorrentino v. Fay Servicing, LLC, et al.D. ConnecticutAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Mar 31, 2026Christopher A. Ambrose v. Bandy X. LeeD. ConnecticutAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Mar 30, 2026Jacobs v. Payward, Inc.D. ConnecticutAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Feb 6, 2026Raul Gonzales Davila v. RoblenD. ConnecticutUnidentifiedSource
Dec 15, 2025Braica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)D. ConnecticutAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Nov 25, 2025Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI DanburyD. ConnecticutUnidentifiedSource
Nov 17, 2025Cojom v. RoblenD. ConnecticutUnidentifiedSource
Jun 20, 2025Reilly v. Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. AgencyD. ConnecticutAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Apr 30, 2025Moales v. Land Rover Cherry HillD. ConnecticutUnidentifiedSource
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.