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 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.
S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026
IN / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiffs cited "Indiana Code § 23-2-1-2" for the proposition that transactions involving unregistered securities are void; the court found the statute has been repealed. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Repealed statutes are the tell of AI drafting — always confirm statutory status before citing.
Why this matter is tracked
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiffs cited "Indiana Code § 23-2-1-2" for the proposition that transactions involving unregistered securities are void; the court found the statute has been repealed. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
Repealed statutes are the tell of AI drafting — always confirm statutory status before citing.
Record details
IndianaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. Indiana
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateMar 31, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiffs cited "Indiana Code § 23-2-1-2" for the proposition that transactions involving unregistered securities are void; the court found the statute has been repealed.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited "Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp., 24 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 1994)"; the court found no such Seventh Circuit opinion and noted a District of Connecticut decision with that name instead.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.?
- Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiffs cited "Indiana Code § 23-2-1-2" for the proposition that transactions involving unregistered securities are void; the court found the statute has been repealed. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- Repealed statutes are the tell of AI drafting — always confirm statutory status before citing.
- What does the public record establish about Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.?
- 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 Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc. 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.