COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

E.D. Missouri

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

Matched records9

Source linked100%

Known USD amount total$1,000

Recorded rangeOct 16, 2025 – Sep 15, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

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

AI Vortex currently links 9 source-linked public matters associated with E.D. Missouri. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (9), Misrepresented authority (6) and Fabricated or altered quotations (4). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (5), Dismissal or adverse disposition (2) and Monetary sanction (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 authorities9 · 100%Misrepresented authority6 · 66.7%Fabricated or altered quotations4 · 44.4%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

No adjudicated consequence recorded5 · 55.6%Dismissal or adverse disposition2 · 22.2%Monetary sanction1 · 11.1%Professional discipline1 · 11.1%Warning or admonishment1 · 11.1%

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

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Pro Se Litigant8 · 88.9%Lawyer1 · 11.1%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Civil Rights2 · 22.2%Administrative1 · 11.1%Employment1 · 11.1%Immigration1 · 11.1%Other1 · 11.1%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 9 of 9

Sep 15, 2026Beard v. Frasier et al.E.D. MissouriNo tool named in sourceSource

Sep 9, 2026Jaber v. Title Premier, LLC et al.E.D. MissouriNo tool named in sourceSource

Jul 10, 2026Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMSE.D. MissouriAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 19, 2026Syreeta LaShawn McNeal v. Vera L. Calvin, et al.E.D. MissouriNo tool named in sourceSource

Mar 31, 2026Jaii LeShawn Quinones v. Unknown Love, et al.E.D. MissouriUnidentifiedSource

Jan 30, 2026Theoda E. Mills, Jr. v. City of St. Louis, et al.E.D. MissouriNo tool named in sourceSource

Nov 17, 2025Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance CompanyE.D. MissouriAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Oct 20, 2025Megan Cowden v. US Treasury & IRSE.D. MissouriAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Oct 16, 2025Serafin v. United States Department of State, et al.E.D. MissouriUnidentifiedSource

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

Fake Citations9 shared records United States9 shared records Mississippi9 shared records Misrepresented Authority6 shared records None Adjudicated5 shared records Fabricated Quotes4 shared records

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, E.D. Missouri Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 26, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/e-d-missouri/report (last visited Oct. 26, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, October 26). E.D. Missouri Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/e-d-missouri/report
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/courts/e-d-missouri/report (accessed 2026-10-26)

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