AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 26, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesGail Fung v. Liberty University
Evidence review: primary document limited. The primary document was retrieved, but one or more case-level facts could not be tied to a page-located passage. The structured corpus baseline is preserved without upgrading those claims.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Gail Fung v. Liberty University

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

W.D. Virginia · Feb 24, 2026

VA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)'; the Court found no such case exists and that it does not support the plaintiff's argument, warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)'; the Court found no such case exists and that it does not support the plaintiff's argument, warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)'; the Court found no such case exists and that it does not support the plaintiff's argument, warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

VirginiaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore VAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Virginia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateFeb 24, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)'; the Court found no such case exists and that it does not support the plaintiff's argument, warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Gail Fung v. Liberty University?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)'; the Court found no such case exists and that it does not support the plaintiff's argument, warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Gail Fung v. Liberty University matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Gail Fung v. Liberty University?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Gail Fung v. Liberty University 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.

Brian Bailey v. Hon. Clark A. Ritchie, et al.W.D. Virginia · Jan 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsScott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.W.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsUnited States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (2)W.D. Virginia · Jan 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBrian Jeffrey Hall Jr. v. Halsted Financial Services, LLCW.D. Virginia · Dec 8, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSherwood v. County of Botetourt, Virginia, et al.W.D. Virginia · May 20, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rightsSuiter v. GM - General Motors, LLCW.D. Virginia · Mar 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

This record mentions Rule 11. See Rule 11 sanctions for AI-generated citations for the rule text and counts across the corpus.

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.