AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 2, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 1, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMulqueen v. Coddington
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Mulqueen v. Coddington

N.D. New York · Sep 23, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotescivil rightstrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation concerning municipal liability to Galbraith, but the Court checked the cited decision and found that it did not contain the quoted text. The Court also explained that Galbraith did not support Plaintiffs’ argument.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fabricated quotes 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 fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in N.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation concerning municipal liability to Galbraith, but the Court checked the cited decision and found that it did not contain the quoted text. The Court also explained that Galbraith did not support Plaintiffs’ argument.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in N.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateSep 23, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation concerning municipal liability to Galbraith, but the Court checked the cited decision and found that it did not contain the quoted text. The Court also explained that Galbraith did not support Plaintiffs’ argument.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mulqueen v. Coddington?
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation concerning municipal liability to Galbraith, but the Court checked the cited decision and found that it did not contain the quoted text. The Court also explained that Galbraith did not support Plaintiffs’ argument.
Why does Mulqueen v. Coddington matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes with a recorded judicial or procedural response in N.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Mulqueen v. Coddington?
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 Mulqueen v. Coddington 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.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Smith v. Clarence Smith et al.N.D. New York · Dec 22, 2025same court · pro se + civil rightsLinda Oliver v. Christian DribuschN.D. New York · Nov 21, 2025same court · pro se + civil rightsMary-Rose F. Calenzo v. Waste Management, Inc.N.D. New York · Aug 5, 2026same court · pro se + trialJeri'yah Ford v. Troy City School District, et al.N.D. New York · Mar 4, 2026same court · civil rights + trialRule v. BraimanN.D. New York · Sep 4, 2024same court · pro se + trialEge Kilinc v. PMMUE Eduservices Private Limited, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 21, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fabricated quotes