Deck appendix · Numbered memorandum, §12 · Case findings · Source inventory and hashes

Case-treatment review

CJ-TR-20261104 v1.3 · Public-source review as of November 4, 2026 · Compiled by Codex with AI assistance for Sam Rogers

Public-source review complete for the presentation scope. No adverse disposition located that changes the narrow historical propositions used. This is not a commercial citator clearance or a representation that every appeal, rehearing, mandate, compliance filing or sealed docket event was retrieved.

Scope and method

Presentation, speaker notes, numbered memorandum and contextual cases in the model-response exhibits; no blanket clearance of every citation inside full attached court opinions or corpus snapshots.

Public-source current-treatment review as of November 4, 2026: exact case/citation and docket searches with appeal, rehearing, certiorari, vacatur, reversal and reconsideration terms; court-authored documents and accessible official indexes checked. Positive citation distinguished from direct subsequent history. Research is complete for this presentation scope, with access and coverage limits recorded; no commercial citator clearance is claimed.

The original 31 model outputs remain unchanged. The findings below are the presentation’s source review, not retroactive corrections to what a model said.

Garner v. Kadince, Inc.

2025 UT App 80, 571 P.3d 812 (May 22, 2025)

Presentation use
Main historical example and supplied-document task
Subsequent treatment / history found
No adverse treatment located for the propositions used. Whiting, filed March 13, 2026, p.6, cites Garner at 815; the TOV/Kosel sanctions order, 355 Conn. 902, 905, quotes it. Cassata also lists it. These are later citations, not appellate affirmances of Garner.
Qualification
Rule 40 sanctions; ¶10 n.4 does not find the requisite intent under RPC 3.3. Available Utah certiorari reports May 2025–April 2026 contain no name/docket match, but index coverage stops before the review date. Rehearing and later certiorari activity are not conclusively cleared.
Disposition for this presentation
Retain the narrow historical example and paragraph pinpoints. Remove any suggestion that no later docket activity has been established.
Evidence locators
CJ-SRC-01, CJ-CT-19, CJ-CT-W01, CJ-CT-13, CJ-CT-20–25

Mata v. Avianca, Inc.

678 F. Supp. 3d 443; No. 22-cv-1461, ECF 54 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023)

Presentation use
Main historical screenshots and sanctions example
Subsequent treatment / history found
No adverse treatment located for the passages used. Whiting p.6 and Beus Gilbert ECF 385 p.2 cite Mata. ECF 55, issued the same day as ECF 54, dismisses the underlying claim as untimely under the Montreal Convention.
Qualification
The sanctions analysis includes bad faith and continued reliance after warning. The merits dismissal is a separate order and must not be described as a sanction for the fabricated citations. The public docket mirror is dated and not a current PACER report.
Disposition for this presentation
Retain the 2023 record, source screenshots and sanction qualification. Add the separate merits-order distinction.
Evidence locators
CJ-SRC-02, CJ-LG-10, CJ-CT-06, CJ-CT-10, CJ-CT-19

Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University

No. 2:12-cv-00970-TS, ECF 385 (D. Utah Sept. 9, 2026)

Presentation use
Recent Utah sanctions example in main slide and notes
Subsequent treatment / history found
ECF 385 confirms the amounts, CLE requirement and named AI tools. ECF 386, dated September 14, 2026, confirms the arbitration award and denies the Robertson Trust’s motion to vacate that award.
Qualification
The motion to vacate in ECF 386 concerns the arbitration award, not vacatur of ECF 385 sanctions. No sanctions-vacatur order was located. Later compliance and any appeal are not certified by the public mirrors.
Disposition for this presentation
Retain as a dated sanctions order; add the later merits-order distinction and link the saved ECF 385 directly.
Evidence locators
CJ-CT-06, CJ-CT-07

Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co.

No. 2:24-cv-05205-FMO-MAA, ECF 119 (C.D. Cal.; signed May 5/filed May 6, 2025)

Presentation use
Contextual comparison in retained Claude A1, not a Utah answer
Subsequent treatment / history found
ECF 119 is a special-master order. After settlement notice, ECF 146 dismissed without prejudice on July 24, 2025, allowing reopening within 60 days; ECF 148 dismissed with prejudice on September 18, 2025.
Qualification
The dismissal order reviewed does not address or vacate ECF 119. Do not infer that settlement reverses the sanctions, and do not call the special master’s order a district judge’s or Utah court’s holding. No complete post-settlement docket/citator clearance.
Disposition for this presentation
Retain only as labeled contextual material; update the full case name, tribunal role and later dismissal history.
Evidence locators
CJ-SRC-03, CJ-CT-08, CJ-CT-09

Prisbrey v. Prisbrey

2026 UT App 39, 588 P.3d 329 (March 19, 2026)

Presentation use
Excluded AI-sanctions lead discussed in saved model responses
Subsequent treatment / history found
Watson v. Prestwich, 2026 UT App 122, ¶27 n.8 (Aug. 6, 2026), cites Prisbrey ¶23 & n.6 on briefing and citation standards. No adverse treatment located for that limited point.
Qualification
Prisbrey vacates a district-court divorce judgment and remands; that is its disposition, not later negative treatment of Prisbrey. Footnote 6 criticizes citations but does not find AI use. Available certiorari index coverage is incomplete after April 2026.
Disposition for this presentation
Keep excluded as evidence of AI-caused sanctions. Replace the random document-host link with a court-opinion PDF mirror and add the reporter citation verified in Watson.
Evidence locators
CJ-CT-12, CJ-CT-05

Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc.

348 F.R.D. 489; No. 2:23-cv-00118-KHR, ECF 181 (D. Wyo. Feb. 24, 2025)

Presentation use
Source-attribution context for Garner ¶7 and the Gemini error
Subsequent treatment / history found
The underlying ECF 181 sanctions order was retained. Whiting p.6 cites Wadsworth at 495; Garner ¶7 attributes its quoted passage to Wadsworth rather than Mata.
Qualification
No adverse treatment located for the narrow attribution point. This is not an independent claim of current binding Utah law, nor a complete review of the underlying products-liability litigation.
Disposition for this presentation
Retain as contextual source attribution; supply the exact original order.
Evidence locators
CJ-CT-11, CJ-CT-19, CJ-SRC-01

TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez / Kosel Equity, LLC v. MacGregor

355 Conn. 902, 905; SC 21183/21184 (sanctions order dated July 31, 2026; mirror release metadata Aug. 4)

Presentation use
Later judicial citation to Garner, named in speaker notes
Subsequent treatment / history found
Court-authored text at 355 Conn. 905 quotes Garner at 815 about harm from fabricated citations. The order is ancillary to the earlier merits opinions, not appellate review of Garner.
Qualification
The official PDF request reset; court text was inspected through the web-tool mirror. No adverse treatment located in targeted searches, but no complete subsequent docket/citator report. Distinguish the July 31 order date from the August 4 mirror release metadata.
Disposition for this presentation
Retain only the verified later-citation proposition, with full citation and date distinction in the review record.
Evidence locators
CJ-CT-W01

Whiting v. City of Athens, Tennessee

Nos. 24-5918/5919/25-5424, filed March 13, 2026; sanctions opinion, p.6 (6th Cir.)

Presentation use
Later judicial citation to Garner, Mata and Wadsworth
Subsequent treatment / history found
The filed court PDF at p.6 quotes Mata and string-cites Garner and Wadsworth in discussing fabricated authorities. No adverse treatment located in targeted searches.
Qualification
The separately issued merits opinion is not this sanctions opinion. Do not infer that AI generated the false citations or name a tool from this citation alone. The court-host bare domain did not resolve; the filed PDF was retained from a public mirror.
Disposition for this presentation
Retain the exact p.6 citation, without a broader AI-attribution or finality claim.
Evidence locators
CJ-CT-19

Names that are not adopted as legal authorities

Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339: Fabricated case used as a labeled teaching example, documented in Mata ECF 54. Not cited as authority.

Royer v. Nelson, 2007 UT App 74, 156 P.3d 789: Fabricated case identified by Garner ¶2. Preserved in verbatim model exhibits, not adopted as authority.

Bingel v. New York County District Attorney: Unverified case name in Qwen P3 only. No matching authority located in targeted public searches. No fabrication finding asserted; excluded from relied-on authorities.

Other cases embedded in complete court documents, graph corpus snapshots or verbatim exhibits: Attachment presence does not adopt every embedded citation as presentation authority. No raw exhibit or original response was changed.

Access and coverage limits

Retained source schedule

CJ-CT-01: Utah Supreme Court certiorari disposition index

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:11.942817+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: b2e539ae2bdd5d617a36dae0f542ccddafbeb8a63fd029a332ecfee96bc3cfb5

CJ-CT-02: Utah Supreme Court certiorari granted-order index

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:13.599760+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: d8ba9f5a153e600374b469777de5b9e97c8a3c08f8524f7c2da4de9e8344ca1b

CJ-CT-03: Whiting, Sixth Circuit sanctions opinion, March 13, 2026

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:15.166983+00:00 · HTTP unavailable

Access result: URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 8] nodename nor servname provided, or not known>. No substantive inference from unavailable content.

CJ-CT-04: TOV Realty / Kosel Equity sanctions order, mirrored court text

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:15.261476+00:00 · HTTP 404

Access result: HTTP Error 404: Not Found. No substantive inference from unavailable content.

CJ-CT-05: Watson v. Prestwich, later judicial citation to Prisbrey

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:15.694265+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: ec1397429c4d34ac406a1ab6f144a45e90397ab48043485001453ea70f78aa0d

CJ-CT-06: Beus Gilbert, ECF 385 sanctions order

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:16.471811+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 09beb4373ae66c2c973b4a88a120e9ba7b76b6f7f249cdb62f7e33348371db05

CJ-CT-07: Beus Gilbert, ECF 386 subsequent merits order

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:17.106834+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 110d47218bf1d04ae0328ce89672edb1c4edc5286040ce6695bdd540844a018f

CJ-CT-08: Lacey, ECF 146 dismissal after settlement notice

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:17.924060+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 2bb3e4d05ef39c18e3e7ca25740c28f764497c2168d938427be4e3da879a9952

CJ-CT-09: Lacey, ECF 148 dismissal with prejudice

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:18.530280+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: e956533b3e87bff8f275644fcc25299362662e8841e7b118f780683234a0d525

CJ-CT-10: Mata, ECF 55 merits dismissal order

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:19.347769+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 1525d112321d988c6d3d54feb1af2e5321bfa5a723bb5dd5b1ddee4fc73ee2e0

CJ-CT-11: Wadsworth, ECF 181 sanctions order

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:20.004306+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: affb264eed7331fecba880e81179aea641b35f399cfda13b3cb6bec8215e3521

CJ-CT-12: Prisbrey, court-authored opinion, fresh mirror copy

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:20.632370+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: a1703ee58c211786f2f7897ef81063197edf2048937336988e3f3e85dc2b45cd

CJ-CT-13: Cassata, official New York opinion citing Garner, Mata and Wadsworth

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:21.312430+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: ddee71ae7ceb3ed8c34f3ce7993140b2d0af7643a7e08184fc48e78615cb21e9

CJ-CT-14: Beus Gilbert public docket mirror

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:22.211016+00:00 · HTTP 403

Access result: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden. No substantive inference from unavailable content.

CJ-CT-15: Lacey public docket mirror

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:22.577860+00:00 · HTTP 403

Access result: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden. No substantive inference from unavailable content.

CJ-CT-16: Mata public docket mirror

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:22.819952+00:00 · HTTP 403

Access result: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden. No substantive inference from unavailable content.

CJ-CT-17: Wadsworth public docket mirror

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:37:23.048398+00:00 · HTTP 403

Access result: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden. No substantive inference from unavailable content.

CJ-CT-18: TOV Realty / Kosel Equity, official Connecticut sanctions order

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:42.678056+00:00 · HTTP unavailable

Access result: URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 54] Connection reset by peer>. No substantive inference from unavailable content.

CJ-CT-19: Whiting, mirrored Sixth Circuit sanctions opinion

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:42.967958+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 44e2b23a2b8cc867f0616252c6f19b0cc6ee5ab4752c9e8be09200aef343cab8

CJ-CT-20: Utah Supreme Court certiorari report 2025cert_05-06

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:44.045501+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 158acaf5050f3c3590e15ac2d60cefa723f9563ace40964cc768e6f3dfb93eac

CJ-CT-21: Utah Supreme Court certiorari report 2025cert_07-08

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:45.276135+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 6648b801e3977a9cf808bf9320fd9b70acfb5ed153bb4969c2d1a02522adabb9

CJ-CT-22: Utah Supreme Court certiorari report 2025cert_09-10

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:46.620801+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 5114281e0f75061d1ff02d2f3e7b2419d2882b9f538e5b042f088726a7e3ed16

CJ-CT-23: Utah Supreme Court certiorari report 2025cert_11-12

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:47.958292+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 5c3a00bf08bbafe1d45762cc28f198d4c3b7146f4aed072076623c4ad016cd45

CJ-CT-24: Utah Supreme Court certiorari report 2026cert_01-02

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:49.262348+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 1663eea0a60187ce677e203a3c6bc311e49acb1db5841dd6b89cffa4f1cad54b

CJ-CT-25: Utah Supreme Court certiorari report 2026cert_03-04

Public source · retrieved 2026-11-04T14:38:50.593364+00:00 · HTTP 200

Retained source bytes

SHA-256: 3afcbf78d9b24c080e02ae50bf673d55d12bb8676fccc052529e358de14e1680

CJ-CT-W01: TOV / Kosel court-text mirror

Official locator: Connecticut order. Official automated retrieval reset. Court-authored mirror text was inspected through the web research tool at 355 Conn. 905; the retained tool receipt is private preparation evidence. The bare mirror URL returned 404, so it is not offered as a working reader link.

Selected executed searches

"Garner v. Kadince" rehearing certiorari reversed vacated
"Garner v. Kadince" "2026"
"Garner v. Kadince" "overruled"
"Garner v. Kadince" "rehearing"
"Garner" "Kadince" "certiorari"
"Mata v. Avianca" sanctions appeal vacated reconsideration
"Mata v. Avianca" "appeal" "sanctions" "Second Circuit"
"Mata v. Avianca" "sanctions" "vacated" -"If" -"Kruglyak"
"Lacey" "State Farm" sanctions "119" "reconsideration"
"Lacey v. State Farm" "sanctions" "vacated"
"Lacey v. State Farm" "sanctions" "objections"
"Lacey" "2:24-cv-05205" sanctions order 2026
"Prisbrey" "2026 UT App 39" certiorari
"Prisbrey v. Prisbrey" "certiorari"
"Prisbrey" "20250070" rehearing
"Beus Gilbert" "385" sanctions September 2026 reconsideration
"Beus Gilbert" "September 9, 2026"
"Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young" "sanctions" 2026
"Wadsworth v. Walmart" "reconsideration"
"Wadsworth v. Walmart" "348 F.R.D." "appeal"
"Wadsworth v. Walmart" "sanctions" "vacated"
"TOV Realty" "Suarez" "Garner"
"TOV Realty" "sanctions" "vacated"
"TOV Realty" "355 Conn." "902"
"Whiting v. City of Athens" "rehearing" "2026"
"Whiting v. City of Athens" "sanctions" "reversed"
"Whiting" "City of Athens" "rehearing denied"
"Bingel" "New York County" "2025"
"Bingel v." "District Attorney"

Selected exact executed queries; not an export of every search result. Secondary trackers were discovery aids; findings below rely on court documents or explicitly identified court-text mirrors.

Earlier primary materials: CJ-SRC-01–05. Hashes identify retained bytes, not legal validity or completeness.