AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 12, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesElbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.

S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026

IN / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to pro se plaintiffs for submitting filings with inaccurate citations, including a repealed statute and a non-existent case. While the court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions, it explicitly cautioned the litigants regarding their duty to verify all legal and factual allegations, particularly when utilizing artificial intelligence tools.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which mandates a reasonable inquiry into the accuracy of legal and factual allegations. The court noted that while it would not impose sanctions in this instance, the use of AI in drafting necessitates heightened vigilance to ensure accuracy and honesty in court submissions.
Why it matters now
Repealed statutes are the tell of AI drafting — always confirm statutory status before citing.

Why this matter is tracked

In a breach of contract action against a cryptocurrency platform, pro se plaintiffs submitted briefing containing inaccurate legal citations, including a repealed Indiana statute and a non-existent Seventh Circuit opinion. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no breach of contract. Regarding the citations, the court noted that while it was unclear if the errors were fabricated or erroneous, all litigants must conduct a reasonable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court issued a formal warning to the plaintiffs regarding their duty of accuracy and honesty in filings, specifically cautioning against the unverified use of artificial intelligence in legal drafting.

Operational lesson

Repealed statutes are the tell of AI drafting — always confirm statutory status before citing.

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore INOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. Indiana
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateMar 31, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSummary judgment granted for defendant; court issued a formal warning to plaintiffs regarding citation accuracy and Rule 11 obligations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.?
The court issued a formal warning to pro se plaintiffs for submitting filings with inaccurate citations, including a repealed statute and a non-existent case. While the court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions, it explicitly cautioned the litigants regarding their duty to verify all legal and factual allegations, particularly when utilizing artificial intelligence tools.
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.

Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance CorporationS.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsTsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLCS.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsWilliam C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey SmithS.D. Indiana · May 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPhilip D. Dennison v. June Caudill et al.S.D. Indiana · Apr 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJana James v. National Board of Osteopathic Examiners, Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMichael Platt v. Volunteers of America Ohio & IndianaS.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations