Leber v. Bryan Medical Center et al.
D. Nebraska · Dec 23, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Nebraska
- Record ID
- leber-v-bryan-medical-center-et-al-2025-12-23
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the motion for reconsideration and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the requirement to verify all legal citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for submitting AI-hallucinated case citations in a motion for reconsideration. The court explicitly noted the plaintiff's failure to verify authorities despite a prior warning and a signed certification of accuracy, citing the potential for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and local rules.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff repeatedly cited 'Kelly v. St. Francis Medical Center, 899 N.W.2d 869 (Neb. 2017)'; the court found that '899 N.W.2d 869' corresponds to St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter (Minn. Ct. App. 2017), indicating the Kelly citation is likely AI-generated.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Nebraska, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a previously denied motion for partial final judgment.
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
The court refers to the citation as a hallucination of artificial intelligence.
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).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.