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.
In re Bryant
M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy) · Nov 18, 2025
NC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited a non-existent case 'Harrison v. Hinson, 338, 352 S.E.2d 836 (1987)'; Court noted no such citation exists and that the likely intended case (Harris v. Hinson) is inapposite to Debtors' proposition. Outcome: Show Cause Order.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited a non-existent case 'Harrison v. Hinson, 338, 352 S.E.2d 836 (1987)'; Court noted no such citation exists and that the likely intended case (Harris v. Hinson) is inapposite to Debtors' proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'In re Weiman, 22 F.3d 135 (7th Cir. 1994)', but the case and caption are incorrect (the cited opinion corresponds to Kirk v. Fed. Prop. Mgmt. Corp.); Court found the citation does not support Debtors' proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors relied on 'In re Schmid, No. 10-12142, 2013 WL 4835463 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. Sept. 5, 2013)', which the Court found is not an authentic Westlaw citation as presented and whose orders do not support Debtors' asserted proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Debtors attributed a quotation to In re Symington, 209 B.R. 678, 689 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) that does not appear in that opinion; Court identified the misquote. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Pulley v. Pulley, 254 N.C. 714 (1961)' — citation is inaccurate though the underlying case exists and the Court corrected the proper citation and discussed its limited relevance.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited a non-existent case 'Harrison v. Hinson, 338, 352 S.E.2d 836 (1987)'; Court noted no such citation exists and that the likely intended case (Harris v. Hinson) is inapposite to Debtors' proposition. Outcome: Show Cause Order.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order.
Record details
North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtM.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateNov 18, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeShow Cause Order
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
Show Cause Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited a non-existent case 'Harrison v. Hinson, 338, 352 S.E.2d 836 (1987)'; Court noted no such citation exists and that the likely intended case (Harris v. Hinson) is inapposite to Debtors' proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited 'In re Weiman, 22 F.3d 135 (7th Cir. 1994)', but the case and caption are incorrect (the cited opinion corresponds to Kirk v. Fed. Prop. Mgmt. Corp.); Court found the citation does not support Debtors' proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors relied on 'In re Schmid, No. 10-12142, 2013 WL 4835463 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. Sept. 5, 2013)', which the Court found is not an authentic Westlaw citation as presented and whose orders do not support Debtors' asserted proposition.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Debtors attributed a quotation to In re Symington, 209 B.R. 678, 689 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) that does not appear in that opinion; Court identified the misquote.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtors cited 'Pulley v. Pulley, 254 N.C. 714 (1961)' — citation is inaccurate though the underlying case exists and the Court corrected the proper citation and discussed its limited relevance.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re Bryant?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtors cited a non-existent case 'Harrison v. Hinson, 338, 352 S.E.2d 836 (1987)'; Court noted no such citation exists and that the likely intended case (Harris v. Hinson) is inapposite to Debtors' proposition. Outcome: Show Cause Order.
- Why does In re Bryant matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: Show Cause Order.
- What does the public record establish about In re Bryant?
- 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 In re Bryant 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.