Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette

United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey · Federal bankruptcy courts · NJ · 2026-05-20 · No. 25-21600 · order

Fabricated or misquoted citationsGAI

On 2026-05-20, in In re Nicholia Cherry-Crockette, the District of New Jersey Bankruptcy Court denied the sanctions motion and rejected authorities that were nonexistent or did not support the debtor's position. A self-represented litigant filed a motion using nonexistent or hallucinated authorities and authorities used for propositions they did not support.

Disposition: The bankruptcy court denied the sanctions motion and rejected authorities that were nonexistent or did not support the debtor's position.
Recorded conduct: A self-represented litigant filed a motion using nonexistent or hallucinated authorities and authorities used for propositions they did not support. — outcome: other; actor: litigant in person
Canonical record: Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

The Inapplicable or Non-Existent Cases Cited by Debtor In her supplemental submission, the Debtor cites three cases in support of her position that there is a willful stay violation. None of those cases involved a legally required notification such as what is at issue here, nor did any of those cases analyze the sufficiency of a disclaimer in the particular circumstances of the case. # Td. #1 In re Kirby, 599 B.R. 427, 44445 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2019) (noting that the inclusion ofa bankruptcy disclaimer does not insulate a creditor from liability for a stay violation but finding on those facts that there was no violation of the discharge injunction) 42 See, e.g., Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Epperson (In re Epperson), 189 B.R. 195, 198-99 (E.D. Mo. 1995); In re Youngkin, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 765, at *16 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. ... For the reasons stated, the Sanctions Motion is DIENIED. The Court will enter an Order in accordance with this Opinion. May 20, 2026 - A Hon. Vincent F.

Authorities cited in the passage: Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Epperson

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public mirror; official copy pendingprovisional
Found via: charlotin-cc0
Notes: Read from the Charlotin CC0 public mirror of the court-authored document; official copy is pending.

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub