AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAngela Williams, et al. v. Jamal Rashid, et al.
Evidence review: primary document limited. The primary document was retrieved, but one or more case-level facts could not be tied to a page-located passage. The structured corpus baseline is preserved without upgrading those claims.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

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

D. Nevada · Jun 9, 2025

NV / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontractMonetaryStruck Filing
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

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.

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
Explore NVOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Nevada
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJun 9, 2025
UN
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.

  1. 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.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Amended motion cites Cross v. Cross for a duress proposition; court found Cross does not exist (fabricated case).
  3. 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 quotesSeeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesWendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual TilleryD. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityEdward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesAnthony Wallace v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 26, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesNicole Beverly Silverberg v. Steven Bonomo, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes