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 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., et al.
D. Nevada · Dec 30, 2025
NV / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referralcontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the district court opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI. Outcome: Briefs Struck; Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the district court opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Nevada decision cited; counsel admitted the cited state-court opinion was not real and was AI-generated. || Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court could not locate the practice guide/treatise cited; counsel admitted the reference was not real and generated by AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion cited; counsel later admitted the cited decision was not real and was AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Ninth Circuit opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI.
- Why it matters now
- Bar referral follows multiple fabricated cites in one brief; require Westlaw/Lexis pinpoint verification log for every AI-assisted filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the district court opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI. Outcome: Briefs Struck; Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral.
Operational lesson
Bar referral follows multiple fabricated cites in one brief; require Westlaw/Lexis pinpoint verification log for every AI-assisted filing.
Record details
NevadaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Nevada
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 30, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBriefs Struck; Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral
Known amountNot recorded
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
Briefs Struck; Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the district court opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Nevada decision cited; counsel admitted the cited state-court opinion was not real and was AI-generated.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court could not locate the practice guide/treatise cited; counsel admitted the reference was not real and generated by AI.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion cited; counsel later admitted the cited decision was not real and was AI-generated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the Ninth Circuit opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the district court opinion cited; counsel admitted the citation was not real and produced by AI. Outcome: Briefs Struck; Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral.
- Why does M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Bar referral follows multiple fabricated cites in one brief; require Westlaw/Lexis pinpoint verification log for every AI-assisted filing.
- What does the public record establish about M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., et al.?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this M.T. Real Estate Investment Inc. v. Servis One, Inc., 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.