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. Whitaker
E.D. Michigan · Mar 2, 2026
MI / federalEditorial impact: career endingpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Patel v. City of Ferndale, 308 F.3d 511, 517 (6th Cir. 2002)'; the court identified it as a fabricated/phantom case likely produced by generative AI and flagged it as a hallucination. Outcome: Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Patel v. City of Ferndale, 308 F.3d 511, 517 (6th Cir. 2002)'; the court identified it as a fabricated/phantom case likely produced by generative AI and flagged it as a hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Thompson v. City of Lebanon, 813 F.3d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 2016)'; the court identified it as a fabricated citation likely resulting from AI and noted it among fake citations. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999)'; the court listed this as one of several fake citations and suspected AI-generated hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Wesley v. Rigney, 860 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2017)'; the court characterized this as a fake citation likely produced by generative AI and cited it as an example of 'phantom cases.'
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Patel v. City of Ferndale, 308 F.3d 511, 517 (6th Cir. 2002)'; the court identified it as a fabricated/phantom case likely produced by generative AI and flagged it as a hallucination. Outcome: Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateMar 2, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomePlaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice
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
Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice
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's MSJ included the citation 'Patel v. City of Ferndale, 308 F.3d 511, 517 (6th Cir. 2002)'; the court identified it as a fabricated/phantom case likely produced by generative AI and flagged it as a hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Thompson v. City of Lebanon, 813 F.3d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 2016)'; the court identified it as a fabricated citation likely resulting from AI and noted it among fake citations.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999)'; the court listed this as one of several fake citations and suspected AI-generated hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Wesley v. Rigney, 860 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2017)'; the court characterized this as a fake citation likely produced by generative AI and cited it as an example of 'phantom cases.'
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Hardy v. Whitaker?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's MSJ included the citation 'Patel v. City of Ferndale, 308 F.3d 511, 517 (6th Cir. 2002)'; the court identified it as a fabricated/phantom case likely produced by generative AI and flagged it as a hallucination. Outcome: Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
- Why does Hardy v. Whitaker matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
- What does the public record establish about Hardy v. Whitaker?
- 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. Whitaker 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.