ApodictaShow me on my files

North Carolina · federal district court · 2026

Lucas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina, 25 February 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · W.D.N.C.

  1. Court. District Court, W.D. North CarolinaCOURT
  2. Level. federal district courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 25 February 2026DATED
  4. Docket. No. 3:25-cv-01015DOCKET
  5. Judge. Max Oliver Cogburn Jr.JUDGE
  6. Documents. one document, 4 passages quoted belowON FILE
  7. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.

Docket entry 14, 25 February 2026 · source · PDF · 4 pages

Docket text. ORDER re the Court's Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence: Within 21 days of this Court's Order, Plaintiff shall (1) file a brief with the Court explaining her fraudulent case citations, (2) file a motion to amend her non-compliant pleadings, and (3) certify to the Court - in each motion or brief filed - that she has and will comply with this Court's Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 2/24/2026. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mek)

12). Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s citation “errors” are Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) hallucinations and violate this Court’s Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence. (Doc.

In 2 particular, the Court is concerned regarding whether factual and legal citations or references in court filings have been properly vetted by counsel or the pro se parties filing the documents. There have been several reports around the country regarding courts receiving briefs containing fictitious case cites and unsupported arguments that have been generated by AI sources. This order is intended to mitigate these concerns with the following requirements.

Between Plaintiff’s response and her surreply, the Court counts no less than twelve wholly fraudulent case citations. In her response, Plaintiff cites the following non-existent cases: 1. First Union Nat’l Bank v.

The Court understands that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, but that does not allow her to flaunt the Court’s rules and haphazardly file pleadings with out completing any due diligence. Even a cursory Google search would reveal that these cases do not exist. Furthermore, AI’s limitations at this point are well-documented, and its proclivity for hallucinating case citations is broadly known.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from District Court, W.D. North Carolina, from North Carolina, or from 2026. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on one of my filesTry the gate
Show me on my files