AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesNia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, 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 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, et al.

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

D. Arizona · Feb 17, 2026

AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 35 at 4) cited a non-existent case; defendant flagged it as fictitious in reply and sought sanctions; plaintiff later filed a notice withdrawing the citation; court did not impose sanctions.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 35 at 4) cited a non-existent case; defendant flagged it as fictitious in reply and sought sanctions; plaintiff later filed a notice withdrawing the citation; court did not impose sanctions.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 35 at 4) cited a non-existent case; defendant flagged it as fictitious in reply and sought sanctions; plaintiff later filed a notice withdrawing the citation; court did not impose sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 17, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 35 at 4) cited a non-existent case; defendant flagged it as fictitious in reply and sought sanctions; plaintiff later filed a notice withdrawing the citation; court did not impose sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, et al.?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 35 at 4) cited a non-existent case; defendant flagged it as fictitious in reply and sought sanctions; plaintiff later filed a notice withdrawing the citation; court did not impose sanctions.
Why does Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, 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 Nia Elan Davis v. American Airlines, 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.

Moffett v. Ally Capital CorporationD. Arizona · Sep 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDaniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.D. Arizona · Apr 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGerow v. FalconeD. Arizona · Feb 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsOluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al.D. Arizona · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsTransamerica Life v. WilliamsD. Arizona · Sep 6, 2024same court · pro se + fake citationsMichael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (1)D. Arizona · Jul 28, 2026same court · fake citations + employment

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.