HomeCasesPoole v. Walmart, Inc.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Poole v. Walmart, Inc.

N.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 2025

IL / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiff cited an incomplete/unspecified Westlaw entry attributed to the (nonexistent) Eastern District of Illinois; court could not find it and treated it as a hallucinated citation. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in N.D. Illinois, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in N.D. Illinois, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtN.D. Illinois

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateSep 5, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiff cited an incomplete/unspecified Westlaw entry attributed to the (nonexistent) Eastern District of Illinois; court could not find it and treated it as a hallucinated citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Phipps v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., which the court and defendant could not locate; court identified it as non-existent.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Carberry v. Chicago Transit Authority, which the court and defendant could not locate; court identified it as non-existent.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Cain v. Chicago Transit Authority, which the court and defendant could not locate; court identified it as non-existent.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Miller decision purporting to be from the Eastern District of Illinois; court noted the Eastern District of Illinois no longer exists and could not verify the citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Poole v. Walmart, Inc.?: Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiff cited an incomplete/unspecified Westlaw entry attributed to the (nonexistent) Eastern District of Illinois; court could not find it and treated it as a hallucinated citation. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Poole v. Walmart, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in N.D. Illinois, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Poole v. Walmart, Inc.?: 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 Poole v. Walmart, Inc. 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.

Allen v. HuntN.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Helen Allen v. Cass Casper and Disparti Law GroupN.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Tekway, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc.N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2026same court · fake citations + tort BFG Corporation v. Pierce RE Holdings et al.N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations USA v. OrganesN.D. Illinois · Jun 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (2)N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtN.D. Illinois

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateSep 5, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Phipps v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., which the court and defendant could not locate; court identified it as non-existent.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Carberry v. Chicago Transit Authority, which the court and defendant could not locate; court identified it as non-existent.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Cain v. Chicago Transit Authority, which the court and defendant could not locate; court identified it as non-existent.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a Miller decision purporting to be from the Eastern District of Illinois; court noted the Eastern District of Illinois no longer exists and could not verify the citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Poole v. Walmart, Inc.?

Why does Poole v. Walmart, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Poole v. Walmart, Inc.?

Which source supports this Poole v. Walmart, Inc. 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.