Sanja Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp. et al.
Ill. App. 1st Dist. · Aug 28, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- Ill. App. 1st Dist.
- Record ID
- sanja-noble-v-wmc-mortgage-corp-et-al-2026-08-28
- Observed 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.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.