AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
Search free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 7, 2026 · Latest decision Nov 3, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesTerence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

S.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 2026

OH / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se plaintiff cited a purported Sixth Circuit opinion to support his argument; the Court found no such case or Westlaw citation and determined the citation was AI‑hallucinated. Outcome: Warning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6).

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6) in S.D. Ohio. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se plaintiff cited a purported Sixth Circuit opinion to support his argument; the Court found no such case or Westlaw citation and determined the citation was AI‑hallucinated. Outcome: Warning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6).

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6) in S.D. Ohio. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

OhioSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OHOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. Ohio
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateJul 29, 2026
First seenAug 9, 2026 (in this dataset)
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6)
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo

Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.

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: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6)

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. Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se plaintiff cited a purported Sixth Circuit opinion to support his argument; the Court found no such case or Westlaw citation and determined the citation was AI‑hallucinated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC?
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se plaintiff cited a purported Sixth Circuit opinion to support his argument; the Court found no such case or Westlaw citation and determined the citation was AI‑hallucinated. Outcome: Warning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6).
Why does Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found the cited Latham authority AI-hallucinated and formally warned Plaintiff that further reliance on such caselaw will result in sanctions (n. 4; 2026 WL 2184981 at *6) in S.D. Ohio. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC?
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 Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC 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.

Muhammad v. Gap Inc.S.D. Ohio · Jul 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsBrock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services et al.S.D. Ohio · May 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKendle Mardis v. Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc., et al.S.D. Ohio · Feb 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsLahti v. Consensys Software Inc.S.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsArron v. Custer, et al.S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsHector Salvatori v. The Huntington National BankS.D. Ohio · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.