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 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re: Marguerite Latete Kilpatrick
S.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy) · Nov 24, 2025
OH / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcy
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Miller, 150 B.R. 834 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993)', which the Court found to be non-existent and noted 150 B.R. 834 corresponds to Brandt v. 440 Assocs., indicating a made-up citation; Court flagged this as a potential AI hallucination and basis for Rule 9011 review.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Miller, 150 B.R. 834 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993)', which the Court found to be non-existent and noted 150 B.R. 834 corresponds to Brandt v. 440 Assocs., indicating a made-up citation; Court flagged this as a potential AI hallucination and basis for Rule 9011 review. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtor relied on In re Pan Am Corp., 159 B.R. 396, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) for the proposition that status quo should be maintained pending withdrawal; Court found that Pan Am addressed Rule 54(b) and dismissal of appeals, not withdrawal/stay, so the authority was misapplied.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Miller, 150 B.R. 834 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993)', which the Court found to be non-existent and noted 150 B.R. 834 corresponds to Brandt v. 440 Assocs., indicating a made-up citation; Court flagged this as a potential AI hallucination and basis for Rule 9011 review.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
OhioSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateNov 24, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Miller, 150 B.R. 834 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993)', which the Court found to be non-existent and noted 150 B.R. 834 corresponds to Brandt v. 440 Assocs., indicating a made-up citation; Court flagged this as a potential AI hallucination and basis for Rule 9011 review.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtor relied on In re Pan Am Corp., 159 B.R. 396, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) for the proposition that status quo should be maintained pending withdrawal; Court found that Pan Am addressed Rule 54(b) and dismissal of appeals, not withdrawal/stay, so the authority was misapplied.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re: Marguerite Latete Kilpatrick?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Miller, 150 B.R. 834 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993)', which the Court found to be non-existent and noted 150 B.R. 834 corresponds to Brandt v. 440 Assocs., indicating a made-up citation; Court flagged this as a potential AI hallucination and basis for Rule 9011 review.
- Why does In re: Marguerite Latete Kilpatrick matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about In re: Marguerite Latete Kilpatrick?
- 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: Marguerite Latete Kilpatrick 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.