COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

S.D. Mississippi

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

Matched records10

Source linked100%

Known USD amount total$5,000

Recorded rangeJun 9, 2025 – Jun 30, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

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

AI Vortex currently links 10 source-linked public matters associated with S.D. Mississippi. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (9), Fabricated or altered quotations (5) and Misrepresented authority (5). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (4), 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?

Fabricated authorities9 · 90%Fabricated or altered quotations5 · 50%Misrepresented authority5 · 50%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

Warning or admonishment4 · 40%No adjudicated consequence recorded3 · 30%Monetary sanction2 · 20%Non-monetary order (CLE, community service, apology)1 · 10%Order to show cause1 · 10%

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

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Pro Se Litigant5 · 50%Lawyer3 · 30%Judge1 · 10%Lawyer; Pro Se Litigant1 · 10%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Employment3 · 30%Civil Rights2 · 20%Contract2 · 20%Habeas1 · 10%Other1 · 10%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 10 of 10

Jun 30, 2026Yuri Petrini v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, et al.S.D. MississippiAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 1, 2026Johnny Fuselier v. John S. RiscassiS.D. MississippiFastcase; Google AISource

Dec 30, 2025Pauliah v. University of Mississippi Medical CenterS.D. MississippiUnidentifiedSource

Oct 22, 2025University Mall v. Okorie et al.S.D. MississippiUnidentifiedSource

Sep 24, 2025Kenisha Black v. Mississippi DRS & HowardS.D. MississippiUnidentifiedSource

Sep 17, 2025Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance CompanyS.D. MississippiAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Sep 3, 2025Blake Lewis v. Entergy Mississippi, LLCS.D. MississippiUnidentifiedSource

Jul 25, 2025Malone-Bey v. Lauderdale County School BoardS.D. MississippiAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 20, 2025Jackson Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Lynn FitchS.D. MississippiPerplexitySource

Jun 9, 2025Lionel Rayale Maurice v. Warden Barry WingfieldS.D. MississippiAI (implied, unspecified)Source

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 States10 shared records Mississippi10 shared records Fake Citations9 shared records Misrepresented Authority5 shared records Fabricated Quotes5 shared records Warning4 shared records

Cite this page

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

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