HomeCasesTerrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

E.D. New York · May 6, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cites a non-existent case, GAI Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Vill. Ltd. P’ship, 961 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Court notes the opinion does not exist. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMay 6, 2026

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

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cites a non-existent case, GAI Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Vill. Ltd. P’ship, 961 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Court notes the opinion does not exist.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quotation to Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2011) that does not appear in that opinion; Court identifies the quotation as nonexistent.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quotation to Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 394 (1995) that does not exist in that opinion; Court identifies the quotation as nonexistent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cites a non-existent case, GAI Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Vill. Ltd. P’ship, 961 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Court notes the opinion does not exist. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.?: 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 Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. 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.

Evgeny Yaroshevsky v. Karlin et al.E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Owens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.E.D. New York · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.E.D. New York · May 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Farrow v. John DoesE.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Superb Motors Inc. et al. v. Anthony Deo et al.E.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · fake citations + contract 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC v. 223 Howard LLCE.D. New York · Feb 3, 2026same court · fake citations + contract

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateMay 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cites a non-existent case, GAI Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Vill. Ltd. P’ship, 961 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Court notes the opinion does not exist.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quotation to Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2011) that does not appear in that opinion; Court identifies the quotation as nonexistent.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quotation to Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 394 (1995) that does not exist in that opinion; Court identifies the quotation as nonexistent.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.?

Why does Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.?

Which source supports this Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. 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.