Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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.
Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (1)
E.D. Michigan · Jan 28, 2026
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on this purported Sixth Circuit decision in his motion to compel; the court identified the citation as fake and noted it as part of the problematic filings. Outcome: Two reply briefs stricken; warning.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on this purported Sixth Circuit decision in his motion to compel; the court identified the citation as fake and noted it as part of the problematic filings. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this decision in his production-motion brief; the court characterized it as a fake citation appearing in the plaintiff's filings and tied to suspected generative-AI use. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this case in his brief; the court identified the citation as fake and noted it among AI-generated phantom cases in the filing. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion; the court flagged the citation as a fake/invalid citation in the filing and linked it to suspected AI usage.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Two reply briefs stricken; warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on this purported Sixth Circuit decision in his motion to compel; the court identified the citation as fake and noted it as part of the problematic filings. Outcome: Two reply briefs stricken; warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Two reply briefs stricken; warning.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateJan 28, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeTwo reply briefs stricken; warning
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
Two reply briefs stricken; warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on this purported Sixth Circuit decision in his motion to compel; the court identified the citation as fake and noted it as part of the problematic filings.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this decision in his production-motion brief; the court characterized it as a fake citation appearing in the plaintiff's filings and tied to suspected generative-AI use.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this case in his brief; the court identified the citation as fake and noted it among AI-generated phantom cases in the filing.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this opinion; the court flagged the citation as a fake/invalid citation in the filing and linked it to suspected AI usage.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (1)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on this purported Sixth Circuit decision in his motion to compel; the court identified the citation as fake and noted it as part of the problematic filings. Outcome: Two reply briefs stricken; warning.
- Why does Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Two reply briefs stricken; warning.
- What does the public record establish about Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (1)?
- 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 Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. (1) 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.