HomeCasesSeeto v. Kendall

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Seeto v. Kendall

D. Nevada · May 5, 2026

NV / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase “would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof” to Withrow v. Larkin, but the court found that language does not appear in Withrow. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning 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 pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning 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

DateMay 5, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

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 | Plaintiff attributed the phrase “would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof” to Withrow v. Larkin, but the court found that language does not appear in Withrow.
Fabricated: Other | Court noted risk that AI research/drafting tools can hallucinate or fabricate legal authority, possibly explaining some of the plaintiff's inaccurate citations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Bittinger v. Tecumseh Products Co. for the proposition that voluntary engagement with a motion waives procedural objections, but the court found Bittinger (an ERISA/res judicata/privity case) does not support that waiver proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Seeto v. Kendall?: False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase “would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof” to Withrow v. Larkin, but the court found that language does not appear in Withrow. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Seeto v. Kendall matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Seeto v. Kendall?: 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 Seeto v. Kendall 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.

Jackson v. United States DHSD. Nevada · Oct 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Edward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 10, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Harvey v. Torrent Leasing & U.S. BankD. Nevada · Dec 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.D. Nevada · Jun 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual TilleryD. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

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.

Fabricated: Other | Court noted risk that AI research/drafting tools can hallucinate or fabricate legal authority, possibly explaining some of the plaintiff's inaccurate citations.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Bittinger v. Tecumseh Products Co. for the proposition that voluntary engagement with a motion waives procedural objections, but the court found Bittinger (an ERISA/res judicata/privity case) does not support that waiver proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Seeto v. Kendall?

Why does Seeto v. Kendall matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Seeto v. Kendall?

Which source supports this Seeto v. Kendall 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.