AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 15, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIn re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette

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

NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcyNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the debtor's motion for sanctions, finding no violation of the automatic stay. In its opinion, the court explicitly identified that the debtor relied on at least one phantom case likely generated by AI and another inaccurate citation, noting that these authorities failed to support the debtor's legal arguments.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the debtor's cited authorities were either non-existent (phantom cases) or inaccurate, and that the creditor's notice was a mandatory regulatory communication rather than a coercive act violating the automatic stay.
Why it matters now
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal research, resulting in the submission of phantom and inaccurate citations that undermine the credibility of the party's arguments and waste judicial resources.

Why this matter is tracked

In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, the pro se debtor filed a motion for sanctions against a mortgage creditor, alleging that a loss mitigation notice violated the automatic stay. The court denied the motion, finding the notice was a required regulatory communication and not a coercive attempt to collect a debt. During the proceedings, the debtor submitted legal authorities in support of her position. The court identified that the debtor cited 'In re Diamond, 346 B.R. 51 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)', which the court could not locate and concluded was likely a phantom case generated by AI. Additionally, the debtor cited 'In re Lisenby, 374 B.R. 271 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2007)', which the court found to be an inaccurate citation.

Operational lesson

This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal research, resulting in the submission of phantom and inaccurate citations that undermine the credibility of the party's arguments and waste judicial resources.

Record details

New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
Explore NJOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. New Jersey (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateMay 20, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court denied the debtor's motion for sanctions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court concluded the debtor's citation was likely a phantom case generated by AI.

Procedural posture

The court issued an opinion denying the pro se debtor's motion for sanctions against a creditor for an alleged willful violation of the automatic stay.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
The court denied the debtor's motion for sanctions, finding no violation of the automatic stay. In its opinion, the court explicitly identified that the debtor relied on at least one phantom case likely generated by AI and another inaccurate citation, noting that these authorities failed to support the debtor's legal arguments.
Why does In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette matter for legal AI risk?
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal research, resulting in the submission of phantom and inaccurate citations that undermine the credibility of the party's arguments and waste judicial resources.
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 citationsJorgensen 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)