Sanja Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp. et al.
Ill. App. 1st Dist. · Aug 28, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)' for the standard of review; court found the authority actually is People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009) and labeled the citation 'hallucinated'. Outcome: Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed.. The appellant's pro se brief contained a 'hallucinated' citation—attributing the standard of review to 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)'. The appellate court found this was incorrect and that the cited language actually appears in People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009), characterizing the error as resulting from AI-generated, unverified content. The court noted the deficiency, declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported argument; no sanctions were imposed.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed. in Ill. App. 1st Dist.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)' for the standard of review; court found the authority actually is People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009) and labeled the citation 'hallucinated'. Outcome: Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed.. The appellant's pro se brief contained a 'hallucinated' citation—attributing the standard of review to 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)'. The appellate court found this was incorrect and that the cited language actually appears in People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009), characterizing the error as resulting from AI-generated, unverified content. The court noted the deficiency, declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported argument; no sanctions were imposed.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed. in Ill. App. 1st Dist.. 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.
Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)' for the standard of review; court found the authority actually is People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009) and labeled the citation 'hallucinated'.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sanja Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp. et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)' for the standard of review; court found the authority actually is People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009) and labeled the citation 'hallucinated'. Outcome: Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed.. The appellant's pro se brief contained a 'hallucinated' citation—attributing the standard of review to 'Ferguson v. Georges, 389 Ill. App. 3d 543, 553-54 (2010)'. The appellate court found this was incorrect and that the cited language actually appears in People v. Mott, 389 Ill. App. 3d 539 (2009), characterizing the error as resulting from AI-generated, unverified content. The court noted the deficiency, declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported argument; no sanctions were imposed.
- Why does Sanja Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp. et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Appellate court identified the citation as a hallucination, corrected the authority (pointing to People v. Mott), declined to strike the brief, and refused to consider the unsupported assertion; no professional sanction imposed. in Ill. App. 1st Dist.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Sanja Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp. et al.?
- 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 Sanja Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp. et al. 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.