Fabricated — does not exist
Henderson v. CoreLogic Nat'l Background Data does not exist — a fabricated AI citation
This case is fabricated
Alongside Rodriguez v. Equifax Info. Servs., the plaintiff in Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground relied on a second decision, labeled “Henderson v. CoreLogic Nat'l Background Data,” for the same theory: that a TLOxp consumer-background report is a “consumer report” under the FCRA. The court found this citation, as filed, does not exist, and warned the plaintiff generally about submitting hallucinated case law.
This entry comes with an important caveat the rest of this database is built to surface: a real case with an almost identical name genuinely exists. Henderson v. Corelogic National Background Data, LLC was actually litigated in the Eastern District of Virginia, with reported decisions in 2016 — but at different volume and page numbers than whatever was cited in the Slach filing, and the Washington district court still could not locate the specific citation as presented.
This is the pattern practitioners most need to internalize: a plausible, even a real, case name is not proof the specific citation attached to it is genuine. The fix is the same either way — pull the actual reporter volume and page and read the opinion, every time, before it goes in a filing.
Real cases with similar names
Verified against the CourtListener case-law database. These are real, existing decisions — do not confuse them with the fabricated citation above.
Henderson v. Corelogic National Background Data, LLC
178 F. Supp. 3d 320 (E.D. Va. 2016) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia · April 18, 2016
A real FCRA case against CoreLogic's background-data subsidiary — genuinely on-point subject matter — but not the specific citation the court found could not be verified in the Slach filing. There is also a second, earlier decision in the same underlying litigation.
Henderson v. Corelogic National Background Data, LLC
161 F. Supp. 3d 389 (E.D. Va. 2016) · U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia · February 18, 2016
An earlier ruling in the same real underlying case as above.
How to verify a case citation
A citation is only as good as its weakest link: the case has to exist, the quote attributed to it has to actually appear in the opinion, and the opinion has to actually support the proposition it's cited for. Deterministic verification checks each of those three things against a primary source — a real court docket or reporter, not another AI's guess — so the result does not depend on whether the tool doing the checking might itself hallucinate. That is the only way to catch a fabricated citation like this one before it reaches a filing rather than after a judge does.
Verify a citation free →Cited in these real sanctions cases
Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground
U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington · Washington (federal) · July 2, 2026
- Outcome
- Warning
Reverse citation check
Paste a brief. We'll flag anything fabricated.
Layer 1–2 check (existence + quote match) against primary sources. Not legal advice.
Related resources
More fabricated citations
This entry documents a fabricated citation identified in a real, publicly reported court ruling. It is informational only, not legal advice. Corrections: /contact.
Written by the Citation Safe Research Desk · Reviewed by Andy Gaber, Founder