Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesFeldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of Education
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 90/100. 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

Feldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of Education

C.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the plaintiffs' counsel regarding the inclusion of nonexistent case law and misrepresented legal authorities in their filings. The judge explicitly stated that further instances of such conduct would trigger a show cause hearing and the consideration of sanctions.

Why the court cared
The court noted that throughout the briefing, the plaintiffs cited nonexistent cases or real cases for legal conclusions that were not discussed or supported by those opinions. The court specifically identified the citation of a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case and a fabricated quote attributed to a real Tenth Circuit case as examples of this conduct.
Why it matters now
Verify every quoted phrase against the opinion text — courts catch the wording, not just the reporter cite.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil rights action against a school district, the court addressed the plaintiffs' reliance on fabricated and misrepresented legal authority. The court noted that the plaintiffs cited a nonexistent Seventh Circuit decision and attributed a specific phrase to a real case that did not contain the quoted language or support the proposition for which it was cited. While the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the underlying claims, it issued a formal warning to the plaintiffs' counsel. The court explicitly cautioned that any future citations to nonexistent cases, misrepresentations of legal authority, or unsupported propositions would result in a show cause hearing and potential sanctions.

Operational lesson

Verify every quoted phrase against the opinion text — courts catch the wording, not just the reporter cite.

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope
Explore ILOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtC.D. Illinois
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit7th Circuit
DateMar 31, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and issued a formal warning to counsel regarding future filings.
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

The court issued the warning in an Opinion and Order resolving the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) in a civil rights lawsuit.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed the phrase "conduct of a sexual nature" to Rost v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 Sch. Dist.; the court found the case exists but the quoted language does not and the proposition cited was unsupported by the opinion.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Seventh Circuit decision that does not appear to exist, relying on it for a legal proposition.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on Busse v. Motorola, Inc. for a theory of intrusion on seclusion, but the court found Busse inapposite and the reliance misplaced.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Feldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of Education?
The court issued a formal warning to the plaintiffs' counsel regarding the inclusion of nonexistent case law and misrepresented legal authorities in their filings. The judge explicitly stated that further instances of such conduct would trigger a show cause hearing and the consideration of sanctions.
Why does Feldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of Education matter for legal AI risk?
Verify every quoted phrase against the opinion text — courts catch the wording, not just the reporter cite.
What does the public record establish about Feldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of Education?
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 Feldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of Education 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.