Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Angela and Theodore Chagnon v. Holly Nelson
Wyoming Ch. · Jul 2, 2025
WY / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Finch v. Smith as authority; the court found it is not a real case, indicating AI-fabricated precedent. Outcome: Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion. Defendant Holly Nelson, appearing pro se, filed a motion to dismiss that included a fabricated case citation, Finch v. Smith, which does not exist. The court inferred that Nelson used AI to draft the motion without verifying the accuracy of the citations. The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Nelson to justify why her filing does not violate Rule 11, or alternatively, to withdraw her motion. If she fails to do so, the court intends to strike her motion entirely.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion in Wyoming Ch., making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Finch v. Smith as authority; the court found it is not a real case, indicating AI-fabricated precedent. Outcome: Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion. Defendant Holly Nelson, appearing pro se, filed a motion to dismiss that included a fabricated case citation, Finch v. Smith, which does not exist. The court inferred that Nelson used AI to draft the motion without verifying the accuracy of the citations. The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Nelson to justify why her filing does not violate Rule 11, or alternatively, to withdraw her motion. If she fails to do so, the court intends to strike her motion entirely.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion in Wyoming Ch., making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
WyomingSingle-state evidence scope
CourtWyoming Ch.
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit10th Circuit
DateJul 2, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOrder to show cause issued; potential striking of motion
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Finch v. Smith as authority; the court found it is not a real case, indicating AI-fabricated precedent.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Defendant invoked Twombly's plausibility standard; the court noted Wyoming has not adopted that standard.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Angela and Theodore Chagnon v. Holly Nelson?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited Finch v. Smith as authority; the court found it is not a real case, indicating AI-fabricated precedent. Outcome: Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion. Defendant Holly Nelson, appearing pro se, filed a motion to dismiss that included a fabricated case citation, Finch v. Smith, which does not exist. The court inferred that Nelson used AI to draft the motion without verifying the accuracy of the citations. The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Nelson to justify why her filing does not violate Rule 11, or alternatively, to withdraw her motion. If she fails to do so, the court intends to strike her motion entirely.
- Why does Angela and Theodore Chagnon v. Holly Nelson matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order to show cause issued; potential striking of motion in Wyoming Ch., making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Angela and Theodore Chagnon v. Holly Nelson?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Angela and Theodore Chagnon v. Holly Nelson summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.