AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 5, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 31, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesCole v. Lee
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Cole v. Lee

CA Illinois · Jul 30, 2026

IL / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro semisrepresented authorityappellateStruck Filing
Direct answer

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.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records Brief struck. 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 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.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Brief struck in CA Illinois. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope
Explore ILOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Illinois
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit7th Circuit
DateJul 30, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeBrief struck
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

Brief struck

Correction behavior

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
Why does Cole v. Lee matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Brief struck 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.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

P-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authorityCavalry SPV I, LLC v. James K. Bernard Jr.CA Illinois · Jun 26, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authorityIn re Marriage of Isom and KareemCA Illinois · Jun 16, 2025same court · pro se + misrepresented authority[Plaintiff] v. Webb Chevrolet, Inc., et al.CA Illinois · Feb 9, 2026same court · pro se + appellateBKA Holdings v. SamCA Illinois · Sep 16, 2025same court · pro se + appellateNicholas George DiCristina v. The Department of Employment Security, et al.CA Illinois · Sep 12, 2025same court · pro se + appellate