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
HomeCasesHadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, 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 is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Hadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, et al.

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.

AC Maryland · Oct 16, 2026

MD / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotestortWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Maryland case Wheatley v. Wicomico County, 390 Md. 273, 288 (2005), was fabricated. The principal citation led to Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Illiano, 390 Md. 265 (2005), and the pincite led to Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287 (2005); neither concerned pleading amendments. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in AC Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Maryland case Wheatley v. Wicomico County, 390 Md. 273, 288 (2005), was fabricated. The principal citation led to Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Illiano, 390 Md. 265 (2005), and the pincite led to Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287 (2005); neither concerned pleading amendments. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in AC Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MarylandSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MDOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtAC Maryland
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit4th Circuit
DateOct 16, 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

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Maryland case Wheatley v. Wicomico County, 390 Md. 273, 288 (2005), was fabricated. The principal citation led to Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Illiano, 390 Md. 265 (2005), and the pincite led to Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287 (2005); neither concerned pleading amendments.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | The brief presented the statement “Leave to amend should be freely granted unless amendment would be futile” as a quotation from a Maryland case. The court found that the language did not appear in any Maryland case, although similar language appeared in some federal district court opinions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Hadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, et al.?
Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Maryland case Wheatley v. Wicomico County, 390 Md. 273, 288 (2005), was fabricated. The principal citation led to Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Illiano, 390 Md. 265 (2005), and the pincite led to Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287 (2005); neither concerned pleading amendments. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Hadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in AC Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Hadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, 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 Hadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, 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.

Eyong v. 72 Barrow St. Realty Corp.AC Maryland · Aug 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsIn the Matter of Gary Brown, Jr.AC Maryland · Oct 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDevin A. Robinson v. Velosio, LLCD. Maryland · May 4, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsAmbrose v. ParlatoD. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourcePosey v. BushnellSC Idaho · Sep 22, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceJaber v. Title Premier, LLC et al.E.D. Missouri · Sep 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

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.