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 amount total$11,321

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 (8), Warning or admonishment (6) and Order to show cause (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?

Fabricated authorities20 · 95.2%Fabricated or altered quotations11 · 52.4%Misrepresented authority10 · 47.6%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

No adjudicated consequence recorded8 · 38.1%Warning or admonishment6 · 28.6%Order to show cause4 · 19%Monetary sanction3 · 14.3%Bar or professional referral1 · 4.8%Dismissal or adverse disposition1 · 4.8%

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

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Pro Se Litigant12 · 57.1%Lawyer8 · 38.1%Governement Lawyer1 · 4.8%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Contract6 · 28.6%Civil Rights4 · 19%Employment3 · 14.3%Other3 · 14.3%Administrative1 · 4.8%

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 CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 15, 2026Christine Thomas v. United States Department of Justice, et al.E.D. North CarolinaAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jun 16, 2026Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al.W.D. North CarolinaUnidentifiedSource

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 18, 2026Forest Ridge Townhomes Corporation of Greensboro v. Heag Pain Management Center et al.North Carolina Court of AppealsPerplexity.AISource

Mar 2, 2026Derence V. Fivehouse v. United States Department of Defense et al.E.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.

CONNECTED INTELLIGENCE

Related corpus profiles

United States21 shared records Fake Citations20 shared records Fabricated Quotes11 shared records Misrepresented Authority10 shared records None Adjudicated8 shared records E.D. North Carolina7 shared records