Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.
W.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2025
VA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language he attributed to Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 216 (3d Cir. 2013); the court found the quoted language appears to have been fabricated and does not appear in that opinion.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
VirginiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Virginia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateDec 9, 2025
AI
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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language he attributed to Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 216 (3d Cir. 2013); the court found the quoted language appears to have been fabricated and does not appear in that opinion.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, 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.