Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners
D. Maryland · Apr 29, 2026 · Stephanie A. Gallagher
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Maryland
- Record ID
- jane-doe-v-baltimore-city-board-of-school-commissioners-2026-04-29
- Observed outcome
- The Court disregarded the fabricated citation and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on the Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court identified a fabricated case citation in the Plaintiff's summary judgment filings. Because the citation was non-existent, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse to consider the legal proposition the Plaintiff attempted to draw from that source.
The Court stated it had sufficient cause to decline to consider the proposition drawn from the fabricated citation, noting the issue had been previously raised with counsel in a March 12, 2026 Letter Order.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of legal research integrity. It highlights that courts may disregard arguments supported by fabricated citations, even if the underlying legal claim is otherwise addressed on its merits.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Cross-motions for summary judgment in an ADA employment discrimination case.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.