Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1WHY096Generated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Jane Doe, et al. v. Lincoln Consolidated Schools, et al.

E.D. Michigan · Mar 23, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
E.D. Michigan
Record ID
jane-doe-et-al-v-lincoln-consolidated-schools-et-al-2026-03-23
Observed outcome
The Court ordered Plaintiffs' counsel to reimburse Defendants for reasonable costs and fees related to the hallucinated citation.
Known monetary consequence
$0
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Court sanctioned Plaintiffs' counsel for including an unverified, AI-hallucinated case citation in their brief. The judge ordered counsel to reimburse Defendants for the costs and fees associated with researching the non-existent authority and bringing the error to the Court's attention.

Why the decision-maker cared

The Court found that the cited case did not exist and that the four cases provided by counsel to explain the 'Frankenstein' citation did not support the proposition for which they were cited. The Court concluded that counsel failed to verify the validity of the citation or ensure it supported their legal arguments.

Why it matters now

Courts now order fee-shifting for opposing counsel's wasted research on fake cites — verify or pay their bill.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Civil Rights
  • Trial
  • Monetary
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
unspecified
Known monetary consequence
$0
Procedural posture
The Court issued an Opinion and Order on cross-motions for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion and denying Plaintiffs' motion, while simultaneously imposing a monetary sanction on Plaintiffs' counsel for the inclusion of a hallucinated citation.
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 characterized the citation as an AI hallucination, though the specific tool was not named.

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.

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

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
  3. Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
  4. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.