AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 15, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAkerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al.

11th Cir. CA · Jul 10, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referralemploymentappellateBar Referral
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al., the 11th Cir. CA addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that counsel cited this case as authority; the court found the citation to be a nonexistent, hallucinated case. The recorded procedural consequence is Bar Referral. The entry is dated 2026-07-10. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Counsel cited this case as authority; the court found the citation to be a nonexistent, hallucinated case..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al., the 11th Cir. CA addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that counsel cited this case as authority; the court found the citation to be a nonexistent, hallucinated case. The recorded procedural consequence is Bar Referral. The entry is dated 2026-07-10. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

Court11th Cir. CA
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateJul 10, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBar Referral
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Bar Referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this case as authority; the court found the citation to be a nonexistent, hallucinated case.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this district-court opinion; the court determined it was a hallucinated citation.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this case as authority; the court found the citation to be a nonexistent, hallucinated case.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this purported Middle District of Florida opinion; the court found it did not exist.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this alleged Eleventh Circuit or other appellate opinion; the court determined it was fabricated.
  6. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this Florida appellate opinion (appeared in multiple filings with inconsistent attribution); the court found the citation was hallucinated.
  7. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this purported Florida Fourth DCA opinion in a reply; the court found it was fabricated.
  8. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited this district-court opinion (D. Colo.); the court concluded the citation was a hallucination.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al.?
In Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al., the 11th Cir. CA addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that counsel cited this case as authority; the court found the citation to be a nonexistent, hallucinated case. The recorded procedural consequence is Bar Referral. The entry is dated 2026-07-10. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
Why does Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a federal proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al.?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., et al. summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; 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.

Marion Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections11th Cir. CA · Jul 10, 2026same court · fake citations + bar referralDowning v. Dwayne Brown, et al.11th Cir. CA · May 20, 2026same court · fake citations + appellateQuinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLCCA California (1d) · Jun 11, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Eliott Williamson v. TransUnion LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc.11th Cir. CA · May 4, 2026same court · fake citations + appellateP-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Reginald Grant v. Amazon.com Services, L.L.C.5th Cir. CA · Jun 25, 2026fake citations + employment · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)