HomeCasesIn re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette

D. New Jersey (Bankruptcy) · May 20, 2026

NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcy

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. New Jersey (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. New Jersey (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. New Jersey (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateMay 20, 2026

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 Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Lisenby, 374 B.R. 271 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2007)'; court found a different citation (In re Lisenby, 2006 WL 802392 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2006)) and concluded the debtor's citation was inaccurate and did not support her proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette?: Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI.
Why does In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. New Jersey (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette?: 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 In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette 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.

Zena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Jorgensen v JML Rose Pty Ltd (Security for Costs)Federal Court of Australia · Feb 9, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Herzel Hagigi v. Official ReceiverSupreme Court · Dec 28, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Gerou v. George, Whitten, and United StatesE.D. Wisconsin · Dec 18, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Jordan v. Beskrone (In re Prehired LLC)D. Delaware (Bankruptcy) · Dec 12, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re: Marguerite Latete KilpatrickS.D. Ohio (Bankruptcy) · Nov 24, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI.

Operational lesson

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. New Jersey (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateMay 20, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Lisenby, 374 B.R. 271 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2007)'; court found a different citation (In re Lisenby, 2006 WL 802392 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2006)) and concluded the debtor's citation was inaccurate and did not support her proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette?

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was likely a phantom case generated by AI.

Why does In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette?

Which source supports this In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette 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.