Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0THSV90Generated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

In re: Pamela Williams

N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy) · Oct 30, 2025

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy)
Record ID
in-re-pamela-williams-2025-10-30
Observed outcome
The court denied the debtor's motion to reconsider.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court identified a fabricated case citation in a pro se debtor's filing, characterizing it as a likely AI 'hallucination.' While the court noted the error and referenced other cases where sanctions were imposed for similar conduct, it did not impose sanctions in this specific instance, denying the motion on other legal grounds.

Why the decision-maker cared

Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.'

Why it matters now

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Hallucinated_case_law
  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Bankruptcy
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
unspecified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Order denying debtor's motion to reconsider an order denying a motion to strike.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The court refers to AI hallucination without naming a specific tool.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.