McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
D. Delaware · Nov 3, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited “Mitchell v. Crescent Directional Drilling, LP (2015),” but the court could not locate any matching case in state or federal court and therefore declined to consider the citation.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Delaware. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited “Mitchell v. Crescent Directional Drilling, LP (2015),” but the court could not locate any matching case in state or federal court and therefore declined to consider the citation.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Delaware. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited “Mitchell v. Crescent Directional Drilling, LP (2015),” but the court could not locate any matching case in state or federal court and therefore declined to consider the citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited “Johnson v. Chapel Hill Independent School District (2018),” but the court could not verify a case matching that identifying information. The court located only a different 1988 Fifth Circuit case and declined to assume it was the intended authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court stated that the case authority Plaintiff referenced in support of punitive damages appeared to be a hallucinated citation; the Report and Recommendation does not reproduce or identify that citation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited “Mitchell v. Crescent Directional Drilling, LP (2015),” but the court could not locate any matching case in state or federal court and therefore declined to consider the citation.
- Why does McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Delaware. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health?
- 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 McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health 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.