AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesBraun v. Day
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 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Braun v. Day

N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2026

IL / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Braun v. Day, the N.D. Illinois addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that eEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 11 C 0195, 2012 WL 3061482 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2012),. The recorded procedural consequence is Show Cause Order. The entry is dated 2026-04-30. 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: EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 11 C 0195, 2012 WL 3061482 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2012),.
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 Braun v. Day, the N.D. Illinois addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that eEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 11 C 0195, 2012 WL 3061482 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2012),. The recorded procedural consequence is Show Cause Order. The entry is dated 2026-04-30. 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

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope
Explore ILOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. Illinois
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateApr 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeShow Cause Order
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

Show Cause Order

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 11 C 0195, 2012 WL 3061482 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2012),
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | BankDirect Cap. Fin., LLC v. Cap. Premium Fin., Inc., No. 15 C 10340, 2017 WL 1022010, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2017)
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Westefer v. Snyder, No. 07 C 2798, 2008 WL 190317 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2008)

Questions this record answers

What happened in Braun v. Day?
In Braun v. Day, the N.D. Illinois addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that eEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 11 C 0195, 2012 WL 3061482 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2012),. The recorded procedural consequence is Show Cause Order. The entry is dated 2026-04-30. 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 Braun v. Day 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 Braun v. Day?
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 Braun v. Day summary?
The recorded source is CourtListener / RECAP. It is classified as docket or legal-document mirror; 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.

United States of America v. SmithN.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2026same court · fake citations + trialTekway, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc.N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2026same court · fake citations + trialBFG Corporation v. Pierce RE Holdings et al.N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026same court · fake citations + trialUSA v. OrganesN.D. Illinois · Jun 29, 2026same court · fake citations + trialIfeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (2)N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2026same court · fake citations + trialAllison v. Shutterfly LifeTouch LLCN.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026same court · fake citations + trial