AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCases210S LLC v. Di Wu
Evidence review: source unavailable. The linked source could not be retrieved during the latest evidence pass. This page preserves the structured corpus baseline and states the gap explicitly.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

210S LLC v. Di Wu

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); linked document: casemine.com. What AI Vortex adds.

Hawaii · Mar 11, 2025

HI / stateEditorial impact: lowpro setrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Hawaii Supreme Court's March 11, 2025 disposition in 210S LLC v. Di Wu (SCWC-24-0000817) records a self-represented party's fictitious citation and misrepresentation. The available public incident record does not establish a specific AI product or a monetary consequence. It records a warning, rather than a professional or monetary sanction, for the defective authority.

Why the court cared
The linked record identifies pro se and trial and records Warning. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Hawaii, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

The Hawaii Supreme Court's March 11, 2025 disposition in 210S LLC v. Di Wu (SCWC-24-0000817) records a self-represented party's fictitious citation and misrepresentation. The available public incident record does not establish a specific AI product or a monetary consequence. It records a warning, rather than a professional or monetary sanction, for the defective authority.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Hawaii, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

HawaiiSingle-state evidence scope
Explore HIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtHawaii
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 11, 2025
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in 210S LLC v. Di Wu?
The Hawaii Supreme Court's March 11, 2025 disposition in 210S LLC v. Di Wu (SCWC-24-0000817) records a self-represented party's fictitious citation and misrepresentation. The available public incident record does not establish a specific AI product or a monetary consequence. It records a warning, rather than a professional or monetary sanction, for the defective authority.
Why does 210S LLC v. Di Wu matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Hawaii, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about 210S LLC v. Di Wu?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this 210S LLC v. Di Wu summary?
The recorded source is casemine.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Taft v. Thomas et al.Hawaii · Jul 24, 2025same court · pro se + trialU.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of the Chalet Series IV Trust v. Rosy Esprecion ThomasHawaii ICA · Oct 8, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + trialKaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.D. Hawai‘i · Oct 31, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + trialMartin v. Hawai'iD. Hawaii · Aug 20, 2024same jurisdiction · pro se + trialState of Hawaii v. Cody PrestiICA Hawaii · Aug 31, 2026same jurisdiction · pro seSabatini v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionC. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2026pro se + trial · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.