HomeCasesCorey v. Kenneh

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Corey v. Kenneh

SC North Dakota · Oct 22, 2025

ND / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Corey's brief cited case law that the Court found led to different or no cases; Court concluded the citations were non-existent and could not support dismissal for mootness. Outcome: Affirmed sanctions from lower court.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Affirmed sanctions from lower court; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Affirmed sanctions from lower court in SC North Dakota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Affirmed sanctions from lower court in SC North Dakota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

North DakotaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtSC North Dakota

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit8th Circuit

DateOct 22, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAffirmed sanctions from lower court

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

Affirmed sanctions from lower court

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Corey's brief cited case law that the Court found led to different or no cases; Court concluded the citations were non-existent and could not support dismissal for mootness.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Corey v. Kenneh?: Fabricated: Case Law | Corey's brief cited case law that the Court found led to different or no cases; Court concluded the citations were non-existent and could not support dismissal for mootness. Outcome: Affirmed sanctions from lower court.
Why does Corey v. Kenneh matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Affirmed sanctions from lower court in SC North Dakota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Corey v. Kenneh?: 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 Corey v. Kenneh 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.

Volker v. NygaardSC North Dakota · Feb 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations City of Dickinson v. HelgesonSC North Dakota · Feb 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Stokka v. StokkaSC North Dakota · May 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Birsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.C.D. California · Jul 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

North DakotaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtSC North Dakota

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit8th Circuit

DateOct 22, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAffirmed sanctions from lower court

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Questions this record answers

What happened in Corey v. Kenneh?

Why does Corey v. Kenneh matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Corey v. Kenneh?

Which source supports this Corey v. Kenneh 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.