Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
COURT EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-08OTQ95Generated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 2026
COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

SC California

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 amount totalNone recorded
Recorded rangeOct 31, 2024 Aug 20, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in SC California?

AI Vortex currently links 9 source-linked public matters associated with SC California. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (7), Fabricated or altered quotations (3) and Misrepresented authority (3). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (3), Warning or admonishment (3) and Order to show cause (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 9 of 9
Aug 20, 2026Perez v. Schaal, et al.SC CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Aug 11, 2026Meni-Silga v. State FarmSC CaliforniaIrysSource
Jan 13, 2026Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLCSC CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Nov 7, 2025Wade v. Traincareconsult, IncSC CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Aug 6, 2025Gezalayan v. BMW North American, LLCSC CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
May 29, 2025Anita Krishnakumar et al. v. Eichler Swim and Tennis ClubSC CaliforniaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Oct 31, 2024Churchill Funding v. 732 IndianaSC CaliforniaAI (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.