Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Braun v. Day
N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2026
IL / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrial
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
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 11 C 0195, 2012 WL 3061482 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2012),
- 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)
- 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.