COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

D. Utah

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

Matched records13

Source linked100%

Known amount total$11,525

Recorded rangeMay 30, 2025 – Sep 9, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

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

AI Vortex currently links 13 source-linked public matters associated with D. Utah. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (8), Fabricated or altered quotations (4) and Misrepresented authority (4). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (7), Monetary sanction (3) and No adjudicated consequence recorded (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?

Fabricated authorities8 · 61.5%Fabricated or altered quotations4 · 30.8%Misrepresented authority4 · 30.8%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

Warning or admonishment7 · 53.8%Monetary sanction3 · 23.1%No adjudicated consequence recorded2 · 15.4%Dismissal or adverse disposition1 · 7.7%Order to show cause1 · 7.7%

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

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Lawyer7 · 53.8%Pro Se Litigant5 · 38.5%Expert1 · 7.7%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Contract4 · 30.8%Administrative2 · 15.4%Other2 · 15.4%Tort2 · 15.4%Civil Rights1 · 7.7%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 13

Sep 9, 2026Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University et al.D. UtahClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and GeminiSource

Aug 24, 2026Jack Ferm v. Agritech Properties, et al.D. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Aug 7, 2026Hack v. Preston et alD. UtahChatGPTSource

Jul 30, 2026Carey v. Breakell et al.D. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 23, 2026Hagan v. Black Diamond Experts, LLCD. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 4, 2026Regan Wilkes, et al. v. Canyons School District, et al.D. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Apr 22, 2026Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Daniel Vett Finlayson; Michelle JohnsonD. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Mar 23, 2026Nicholas and Barbara Moulder v. Davis School District (on behalf of M.M.)D. UtahUnidentifiedSource

Feb 24, 2026Ryan Lee v. Capital One Bank et al.D. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Dec 4, 2025Black Oak Capital BOCA, LLC v. Paul Evans, LLC, et al.D. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Nov 5, 2025Ross Logan v. LVNV Funding et al.D. UtahAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Sep 30, 2025Khoury et al v. Intermountain Health Care Inc. et alD. UtahChatGPTSource

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 States13 shared records Utah13 shared records Fake Citations8 shared records Warning7 shared records Misrepresented Authority4 shared records Fabricated Quotes4 shared records