Every finding, appeal and indicator checked against its document, scans included (September 14, 2026)

This site records a court finding, an appeal's disposition and a filing-restriction indicator only where a source document supports it. Until now that rule was asserted rather than checked. Every row in the three tables that carry a pointer into the project's own document archive - 72 court findings, 30 appellate rows and 35 filing-restriction indicators - has now been read against the document held for it. Nothing new was researched and no document was retrieved.

All 72 court findings were compared against their source document and the provenance of each was classified. Thirty-four are backed by the document's own machine-readable text and every one of them was confirmed, including each passage quoted verbatim. Fourteen are backed by scanned orders that carry no machine-readable text at all, and were set aside at that stage to be read a different way; that reading is described below. Twenty-three rested on a court's register of actions rather than on the order itself.

Reading those registers changed five findings for the better and eight for the worse. The five now point at the order itself, which had already been retrieved and was sitting unlinked in the archive. The eight pointed at a register that does not record the proceeding at all - a copy captured before the order was entered, an index carrying entry titles but no text, and in one case a docket stub with zero entries - so those pointers have been removed rather than left implying a document that was never held. No finding's substance was found to be overstated by its source, and one caveat was corrected: the order in Tufano v. Eriksson does name the district judge who signed it.

The same check was then run on the 30 appellate rows and the 35 filing-restriction indicators. Six described their source more confidently than the document allowed and have been rewritten to track it. Three were moved onto a better document that was already in the archive and had never been linked - in one case a report and recommendation carrying, word for word, the characterisations the row summarised, where the row had pointed at a bare docket listing instead. One pointer was removed because the docket listing it named carries no text on any of its 155 entries and so cannot document the order the row describes; the same order lost its pointer among the court findings, for the same reason.

One indicator that had been coded as following a judicial warning is no longer coded that way: both documents naming the supposed warning are held in full, and neither contains one - what they record is ordinary case-management advice about pleading deficiencies. Every quoted passage in the appellate and indicator tables was checked character by character against the archive, and all of them are accurate.

The rows that could not be read from stored text were then read from images of the pages themselves - twenty-seven rows across eighteen documents and a hundred and thirty-nine pages, covering the Pennsylvania county filings, four federal orders and two New York decisions. Twenty-four of the twenty-seven are confirmed in full and three are confirmed in part; none was found to claim more than its document supports. Two of those confirmations matter more than the rest. The July 2026 federal order this site quotes on its front page - in which a district judge said a magistrate judge's description of the plaintiff as a prodigious but prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant was not an inaccurate statement, and whose footnote records Clerk of Court figures of 38 lawsuits in that district since December 2023 - had never been read here, because the copy held is an image; both the endorsement and the footnote are as this site describes them. The two New York decisions whose stored text turned out to be nothing but a county clerk's e-filing stamp are likewise confirmed line for line. Two appellate rows were moved onto a better document, in each case the notice of appeal itself, which was already in the archive and had never been linked; one of them, which had said the record did not distinguish a notice of appeal from its amended version, now carries the filing date the record in fact shows.

Related cases

• 2024-06106 — Tufano v. Miller
• 2025-00706 — Tufano v. Motorworld
• 2025-01448 — Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities
• 2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba
• 2025-05633 — Tufano v. Lackawanna County
• 2025-05793 — Tufano v. Saladino
• 2025-06513 — Tufano v. Reddit Inc
• 2026-00262 — Tufano v. Google
• 2026-00325 — Tufano v. Reddit Inc
• 2026-01907 — Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• 3:24-cv-01117 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:24-cv-01115 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC
• 3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01114 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 3:25-cv-00975 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al
• 3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al
• 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:25-cv-01558 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al
• 3:25-cv-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-00397 — Tufano v. Burgess
• 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 3:26-cv-00835 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
• 620245/2024 — Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al
• 651064/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Shopify Inc. et al
• 66298/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Social Security Administration et al
• 7:23-cv-00244 — Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano

Note

Provenance and citation accuracy only. No docket record, court finding, appeal, research classification or disposition was added, removed or re-characterised, and no finding's wording was softened or strengthened. What changed is which source document each row points to, and the removal of the pointers that named a document not recording the proceeding. Where a pointer was removed the row itself stands unchanged on the citation it always carried; the removal records that the project does not hold the order, not that the finding is doubted. Two findings (Nassau County, New York County) are backed by files whose text extraction yielded only the clerk's e-filing stamp; those, and every other row resting on a scan, were read from page images instead - see the note below.

Where an appeal's or an indicator's wording is narrowed here, it is narrowed to what the source document states - a ground a court raised in an order directing a party to show cause is not the same as a ground it decided on, a docket entry recording that an appellate court issued a certified order is not a record that the appeal was dismissed, and a recommendation that a case be dismissed is not a dismissal. The one classification change removes a label the documents do not support, which makes the record less adverse rather than more.

The scanned documents were read from images of their pages rather than by a person opening the court's own copy, and nothing was quoted from them: the reading was used to check wording this site already published, not to add any. The project's standing rule that no verbatim quotation may be published from a machine-read document is unchanged. Where a reading suggested the record might be harsher than this site says - in one case a second, separately recorded ruling on the same day that no entry here describes, in another a federal order that refers to an appeal as dismissed where this site records only that it was terminated with no reason given - nothing was written. Those are noted for a person to decide, because a pass of this kind should only ever be able to make the record less adverse, never more.