Cole v. Lee
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Jesse Schaefer; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
CA Illinois · Jul 30, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Avery v. State Farm, 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) for the proposition that Consumer Fraud Act damages claims are legal claims triable to a jury; court found Avery contains no support for that proposition. Outcome: Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations).
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations) in CA Illinois. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Avery v. State Farm, 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) for the proposition that Consumer Fraud Act damages claims are legal claims triable to a jury; court found Avery contains no support for that proposition. Outcome: Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations).
This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations) in CA Illinois. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Corrected 2026-10-24: see the corrections log.
AI tool read from the primary court record (2026-10-24): open the court record.
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations)
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Avery v. State Farm, 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) for the proposition that Consumer Fraud Act damages claims are legal claims triable to a jury; court found Avery contains no support for that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 1 (1991) as supporting that joined legal and equitable issues require the legal issues be tried to a jury; court found Datacom contains no support for that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Stephens v. Kasten, 334 Ill. App. 3d 1004,' a citation the court found does not correspond to Stephens (which is Stephens v. Kasten, 383 Ill. 127) and the cited volume/page correspond to a different case (People v. Lewis).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'In re Estate of Mulvaney, 288 Ill. App. 3d 464,' but the court noted Mulvaney actually begins at 128 Ill. App. 3d 133 and the cited reporter/page corresponds to People v. Lambert.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Kaiser v. MEPC American Properties, Inc., 164 Ill. 2d 274' with an incorrect citation/attribution as noted by the court among other miscited authorities.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, 116 Ill. 2d 145' with an incorrect citation/attribution; court treated this as one of multiple inaccurate citations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cole v. Lee?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Avery v. State Farm, 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) for the proposition that Consumer Fraud Act damages claims are legal claims triable to a jury; court found Avery contains no support for that proposition. Outcome: Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations).
- Why does Cole v. Lee matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Brief struck and appeal dismissed (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 violations, including authorities that do not support the stated propositions and incorrect citations) in CA Illinois. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Cole v. Lee?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Cole v. Lee 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.
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.