Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Viken on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Viken v. Schuelke

Court
Minnesotta DC
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2026-01-13
AI tool
Lexis Assist
Outcome
Order to Show Cause
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum attributes the quotation 'failure to properly serve required parties invalidates the termination of the contract for deed and, consequently, the vendor's standing to bring title-based lawsuits.' to Enga v. Felland, but the quote does not appear in Enga. || False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum attributes the phrase 'service requirements are "prerequisite to pursuing an action"' to Enga v. Felland, but that phrasing does not appear in the case as cited. || False Quotes: Case Law | Memorandum attributes the quotation that vendors who failed to serve notice 'did not comply with statutory requirements for cancellation' to Ahlstrand v. McPherson, but the court did not locate that quotation in the cited opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Memorandum repeatedly asserts the broad proposition that 'vendors under a contract for deed generally lack standing to bring title-based lawsuits before properly terminating the contract for deed' without any controlling or persuasive authority; cited cases do not support that proposition.

Sanction teardown · Minnesotta DC, USA · 2026-01-13

Viken v. Schuelke

What happened

In Minnesotta DC, USA, a filing relied on Lexis Assist to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Memorandum attributes the quotation 'failure to properly serve required parties invalidates the termination of the contract for deed and, consequently, the vendor's standing to bring title-based lawsuits.' to Enga v. Felland, but the quote does not appear in Enga.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Memorandum attributes the phrase 'service requirements are "prerequisite to pursuing an action"' to Enga v. Felland, but that phrasing does not appear in the case as cited.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Memorandum attributes the quotation that vendors who failed to serve notice 'did not comply with statutory requirements for cancellation' to Ahlstrand v. McPherson, but the court did not locate that quotation in the cited opinion.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Memorandum repeatedly asserts the broad proposition that 'vendors under a contract for deed generally lack standing to bring title-based lawsuits before properly terminating the contract for deed' without any controlling or persuasive authority; cited cases do not support that proposition.

Which AI tool

Lexis Assist. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Order to Show Cause

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2337/10_-_Viken_v_Schuelke.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2337/10_-_Viken_v_Schuelke.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template