STATE EVIDENCE REPORT

Delaware

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

Matched records13

Source linked92.3%

Known USD amount totalNone recorded

Recorded rangeMar 12, 2025 – Sep 30, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What patterns appear in the public records associated with Delaware?

AI Vortex currently links 13 source-linked public matters associated with Delaware. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (9), Fabricated or altered quotations (7) and Misrepresented authority (7). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (5), Warning or admonishment (5) and Dismissal or adverse disposition (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 state.

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 · 69.2%Fabricated or altered quotations7 · 53.8%Misrepresented authority7 · 53.8%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

No adjudicated consequence recorded5 · 38.5%Warning or admonishment5 · 38.5%Dismissal or adverse disposition1 · 7.7%Monetary sanction1 · 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?

Pro Se Litigant9 · 69.2%Lawyer4 · 30.8%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Other5 · 38.5%Contract4 · 30.8%Bankruptcy2 · 15.4%IP1 · 7.7%Tort1 · 7.7%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 13

Sep 30, 2026Zheng Liu v. Lynk Global, Inc.Delaware CCUnidentifiedSource

Aug 20, 2026Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. et al.D. DelawareStrongsuitSource

Aug 10, 2026Stephen J. Palumbo and Lori A. Palumbo v. Gregory M. PalumboDelaware Ch.AI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 1, 2026Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al.Delaware Ch.PerplexitySource

May 27, 2026SWSZ Holding v. SZ GlobalSC DelawareUnidentifiedSource

May 27, 2026Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)D. DelawareUnidentifiedSource

Jan 15, 2026Re: IMO the Estate of Joseph L. WeddingtonDelaware Ch.AI (implied, unspecified)Source

Dec 18, 2025Anonymized discovery-order recordDelaware Ch.UnidentifiedSource pending

Dec 16, 2025Dorsey v. JonesDelaware Ch.No tool named in sourceSource

Dec 12, 2025Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)D. Delaware (Bankruptcy)AI (implied, unspecified)Source

Oct 22, 2025In re BittrexD. DelawareAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Apr 4, 2025An v. Archblock, Inc.Delaware Ch.AI (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 States13 shared records Fake Citations9 shared records Misrepresented Authority7 shared records Fabricated Quotes7 shared records Delaware Ch.6 shared records None Adjudicated5 shared records

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, Delaware Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 27, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/de/report (last visited Oct. 27, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, October 27). Delaware Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 27, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/de/report
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/de/report (accessed 2026-10-27)

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