HomeCasesAngela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.

D. Nevada · Jun 9, 2025

NV / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief contained quotations that do not appear in the cases cited; Bistro identified at least two such misquotes in its notice. Outcome: Filing struck; Adverse Costs Order.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Filing struck; Adverse Costs Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Filing struck; Adverse Costs Order in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Filing struck; Adverse Costs Order in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

NevadaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Nevada

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 9, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeFiling struck; Adverse Costs Order

Known amount$1

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Filing struck; Adverse Costs Order

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief contained quotations that do not appear in the cases cited; Bistro identified at least two such misquotes in its notice.
Fabricated: Case Law | Amended motion cites Cross v. Cross for a duress proposition; court found Cross does not exist (fabricated case).
Misrepresented: Case Law | Briefs cite Sheriff v. Marcum, 105 Nev. 824, 828 (1989) for the proposition that threats render agreements void rather than voidable; court found Marcum exists but is a habeas case that does not address that proposition (misrepresented precedent).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.?: False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief contained quotations that do not appear in the cases cited; Bistro identified at least two such misquotes in its notice. Outcome: Filing struck; Adverse Costs Order.
Why does Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Filing struck; Adverse Costs Order in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.?: 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 Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al. 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.

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.D. Nevada · Jul 13, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual TilleryD. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Edward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Anthony Wallace v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 26, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Nicole Beverly Silverberg v. Steven Bonomo, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief contained quotations that do not appear in the cases cited; Bistro identified at least two such misquotes in its notice.

Fabricated: Case Law | Amended motion cites Cross v. Cross for a duress proposition; court found Cross does not exist (fabricated case).

Misrepresented: Case Law | Briefs cite Sheriff v. Marcum, 105 Nev. 824, 828 (1989) for the proposition that threats render agreements void rather than voidable; court found Marcum exists but is a habeas case that does not address that proposition (misrepresented precedent).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.?

Why does Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.?

Which source supports this Angela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al. 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.