Lunday v. Lunday
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Mary Matuszak; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
SC North Dakota · Oct 15, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a fictitious or nonexistent case in his initial brief; the court identified six of the seven case citations in that brief as fictitious or otherwise erroneous and treated the defects as violations of the appellate briefing rules. Outcome: Double Costs.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Double Costs. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Double Costs in SC North Dakota. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a fictitious or nonexistent case in his initial brief; the court identified six of the seven case citations in that brief as fictitious or otherwise erroneous and treated the defects as violations of the appellate briefing rules. Outcome: Double Costs.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Double Costs in SC North Dakota. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Double Costs
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a fictitious or nonexistent case in his initial brief; the court identified six of the seven case citations in that brief as fictitious or otherwise erroneous and treated the defects as violations of the appellate briefing rules.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited fictitious or nonexistent cases in his reply brief; the court identified three of the four case citations as fictitious or otherwise erroneous and relied on the repeated errors in imposing double costs.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lunday v. Lunday?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a fictitious or nonexistent case in his initial brief; the court identified six of the seven case citations in that brief as fictitious or otherwise erroneous and treated the defects as violations of the appellate briefing rules. Outcome: Double Costs.
- Why does Lunday v. Lunday matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Double Costs in SC North Dakota. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Lunday v. Lunday?
- 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 Lunday v. Lunday 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.