Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
STATE EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-1TD4LUVGenerated October 27, 2026Evidence checked Oct 26, 2026
STATE EVIDENCE REPORT

North Carolina

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

Matched records21
Source linked100%
Known USD amount total$11,320
Recorded rangeNov 13, 2023 – Aug 7, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What patterns appear in the public records associated with North Carolina?

AI Vortex currently links 21 source-linked public matters associated with North Carolina. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (20), Fabricated or altered quotations (11) and Misrepresented authority (10). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (10), Order to show cause (4) and Warning or admonishment (4). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the state.

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 12 of 21
Aug 7, 2026Wayne K. Smith, Sr. v. Polk County, et al.W.D. North CarolinaUnidentifiedSource
Aug 3, 2026Damon Forney v. Township of Cary, North CarolinaE.D. North CarolinaNo tool named in sourceSource
Jul 15, 2026Christine Thomas v. United States Department of Justice, et al.E.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Jun 3, 2026Wayne K. Smith, Sr. v. Polk County, et al.W.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
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
Mar 26, 2026Curry v. Capital One Auto FinanceE.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source
Mar 10, 2026United States of America v. Lorenzio Reshaud SimmonsE.D. North CarolinaUnidentifiedSource
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.

Cite this page

Bluebook

AI Vortex, North Carolina Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 26, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/nc/report (last visited Oct. 26, 2026).

APA

AI Vortex. (2026, October 26). North Carolina Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/nc/report

URL

https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/nc/report (accessed 2026-10-26)

Cites the AI Vortex page, not the underlying decision; cite the court's own document for the holding.