Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
COURT EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-1TPUU60Generated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 2026
COURT EVIDENCE REPORT

M.D. North Carolina

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records4
Source linked100%
Known amount total$120
Recorded rangeApr 28, 2026 Jun 2, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in M.D. North Carolina?

AI Vortex currently links 4 source-linked public matters associated with M.D. North Carolina. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (4), Fabricated or altered quotations (3) and Misrepresented authority (2). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (2), Monetary sanction (1) and Order to show cause (1). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the court.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.
OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.
RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.
PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 4 of 4
Jun 2, 2026Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.M.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
May 20, 2026Curtin v. Watts, et al.M.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
May 15, 2026Bank of America v. MappM.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Apr 28, 2026Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.M.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Open all matching records
EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.