Chenco v. Do-Fluoride
D. Idaho · Aug 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Idaho
- Record ID
- chenco-v-do-fluoride-2025-08-22
- Observed outcome
- Court denied defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply, admonished counsel for submitting non-existent quotations, and granted plaintiff's motion to remand.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted Infuturia as stating removal is proper when the arbitration clause or award is raised in defense rather than the complaint; court found the quoted sentence does not appear in Infuturia. Outcome: Court denied defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply, admonished counsel for submitting non-existent quotations, and granted plaintiff's motion to remand.. "Counsel should take seriously its obligation to provide the Court with an accurate description of the law. See, e.g., United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (E.D. Cal.…
The record concerns whether quotations and pincites accurately matched the cited source. The tracked outcome is Court denied defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply, admonished counsel for submitting non-existent quotations, and granted plaintiff's motion to remand.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Accusing opposing counsel of misstating the law while submitting fake quotes compounds the ethics exposure; verify before accusing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Court denied defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply, admonished counsel for submitting non-existent quotations, and granted plaintiff's motion to remand.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.