Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLC
S.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 2026
Short answer. Status: 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); amount: no amount stated. S.D. Ohio, decision date on record July 29, 2026. As of November 7, 2026. Court source · Methodology
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Court
- S.D. Ohio
- Record ID
- terence-a-gragston-v-amazon-llc-2026-07-29
- Observed 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)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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).
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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)
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.