Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 27, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Source-linked corpus view

Connecticut

Connecticut appears in 22 of 2,223 public corpus records (1%). This page describes the recorded dataset, not an incidence rate, prevalence of AI use, or a prediction of future outcomes.

Matched records22
Corpus denominator2,223
Source linked100%
Latest trackedOct 7, 2026
Evidence-based answer

What patterns appear in the public records associated with Connecticut?

AI Vortex currently links 22 source-linked public matters associated with Connecticut. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (14), Fabricated or altered quotations (12) and Misrepresented authority (11). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (9), No adjudicated consequence recorded (7) and Monetary sanction (3). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the state.

Every count below links to the exact matching records. The linked source, subsequent docket history, and local procedural context remain controlling.

Leading issue signalFabricated authorities14 records
Leading recorded responseWarning or admonishment9 records
Known USD amounts$6,0003 known · 0 unquantified
Recorded date rangeApr 30, 2025through Oct 7, 2026
Observed issue mix

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within a single matter.

Recorded consequences

How did courts or authorities respond?

Response categories can overlap and do not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

Participant context

Who appears in these matters?

Matter context

Which practice areas are represented?

Attribution status

How is AI involvement recorded?

Unspecified attribution is not evidence that a particular vendor was used.

Corpus evolution

When were these matters recorded?

Public records in this view

Showing the most recent 22 of 22 matching records.

Butler v. The Travelers Indemnity CompanySC Connecticut · CT · No tool named in source
Oct 7, 2026
Ambrose v. ParlatoD. Connecticut · CT · No tool named in source
Sep 30, 2026
Ambrose v. SwithinD. Connecticut · CT · No tool named in source
Sep 30, 2026
Williams v. Federal Aviation Administration et al.D. Connecticut · CT · No tool named in source
Sep 28, 2026
Ulish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National AssociationD. Connecticut · CT · Gemini Pro; Perplexity; Cetient Legal AI; ChatGPT
Aug 5, 2026
Barteca Holdings v. TacobarnD. Connecticut · CT · Open Law; Claude; ChatGPT
Aug 4, 2026
Sorrentino v. Fay Servicing, LLC, et al.D. Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
Aug 4, 2026
TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez; Kosel Equity, LLC v. MacGregorSC Connecticut · CT · ChatGPT
Jul 31, 2026
Kyne v. EhimaSC Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
May 8, 2026
In re: Kathleen A RabonD. Connecticut (Bankruptcy) · CT · No tool named in source
Apr 3, 2026
Christopher A. Ambrose v. Bandy X. LeeD. Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
Mar 31, 2026
Mohamed Hussain et al. v. Mansoor Quraishi et al.SC Connecticut · CT · Unidentified
Mar 31, 2026
Jacobs v. Payward, Inc.D. Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
Mar 30, 2026
Plaintiff v. DefendantSC Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
Mar 27, 2026
Kosel Equity v. McGregorSC Connecticut · CT · ChatGPT
Feb 19, 2026
Raul Gonzales Davila v. RoblenD. Connecticut · CT · Unidentified
Feb 6, 2026
Braica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)D. Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
Dec 15, 2025
Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI DanburyD. Connecticut · CT · Unidentified
Nov 25, 2025
Cojom v. RoblenD. Connecticut · CT · Unidentified
Nov 17, 2025
Myers v. StateSC Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jul 18, 2025
Reilly v. Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. AgencyD. Connecticut · CT · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jun 20, 2025
Moales v. Land Rover Cherry HillD. Connecticut · CT · Unidentified
Apr 30, 2025
Open all matching records

Scope and limitation

This page 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 a judge’s general practices or sanction rate. For every entity type, the view is not a comparison against unobserved proceedings.

Indexing and evidence status

This public entity profile is indexable and meets the evidence-depth baseline of at least 3 source-linked records.