HomeCasesFagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al.

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

Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al.

D. New Jersey · Sep 16, 2025

NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion to support reconsideration; the Court could not locate any opinion by this caption or citation and found the citation apparently nonexistent; Plaintiff withdrew reliance. 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: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. New Jersey, 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 Warning in D. New Jersey, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. New Jersey

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateSep 16, 2025

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion to support reconsideration; the Court could not locate any opinion by this caption or citation and found the citation apparently nonexistent; Plaintiff withdrew reliance.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion; the Court found no Delaware Chancery opinion at the cited Westlaw citation, located related Puda Coal opinions in SDNY under a different caption/date, and treated the cited Del. Ch. citation as inaccurate/nonexistent; Plaintiff withdrew reliance.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion to support reconsideration; the Court could not locate any opinion by this caption or citation and found the citation apparently nonexistent; Plaintiff withdrew reliance. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. New Jersey, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al.?: 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 Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al. 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.

Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et alD. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Zena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Shaquan Pridgen v. Amazon.com Services LLCD. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lawand Hill v. Sloppy Vinyl, LLC, et al.D. New Jersey · Mar 5, 2026same court · pro se + contract Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMDD. New Jersey · Feb 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

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

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. New Jersey

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateSep 16, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion; the Court found no Delaware Chancery opinion at the cited Westlaw citation, located related Puda Coal opinions in SDNY under a different caption/date, and treated the cited Del. Ch. citation as inaccurate/nonexistent; Plaintiff withdrew reliance.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al.?

Why does Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al.?

Which source supports this Fagan v. Barnhiser, Nanologix, et al. 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.