Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.
D. Maryland · Jul 28, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Court
- D. Maryland
- Record ID
- campbell-v-tidalhealth-inc-2026-07-28
- Observed outcome
- Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the pincite and import of Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div.; court found the plaintiff's pincites/description did not accurately represent the case though Aguilar is a real case. Outcome: Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21).
The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21) in D. Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21)
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.