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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Sigal v. Croner
Nevada DC · Sep 22, 2025
NV / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Listed by Defendants and flagged by the court as a likely AI-generated/fictitious authority cited in Plaintiff's Opposition. Outcome: Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions.. The court flagged multiple authorities in Plaintiff's Opposition as likely AI-generated or inaccurate, preserving the unverified citations in the record but finding basis for concern after its own review. Defendants' counsel identified several suspect authorities (e.g., Pope v. Fellhauer, Wells v. Maroulis, Taylor v.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions. in Nevada DC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Listed by Defendants and flagged by the court as a likely AI-generated/fictitious authority cited in Plaintiff's Opposition. Outcome: Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions.. The court flagged multiple authorities in Plaintiff's Opposition as likely AI-generated or inaccurate, preserving the unverified citations in the record but finding basis for concern after its own review. Defendants' counsel identified several suspect authorities (e.g., Pope v. Fellhauer, Wells v. Maroulis, Taylor v. Colon), and the court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel that future submissions of inaccurate or AI-generated citations will prompt a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause order and possible sanctions. No show-cause hearing or monetary sanction was imposed at this time.
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions. in Nevada DC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
NevadaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtNevada DC
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 22, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCourt declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions.
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
Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Listed by Defendants and flagged by the court as a likely AI-generated/fictitious authority cited in Plaintiff's Opposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Listed by Defendants and flagged by the court as an authority that appeared inaccurate or AI-generated in Plaintiff's Opposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appeared among authorities challenged as inaccurate/AI-generated; court noted concerns though LaMantia is an existing Nevada case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Listed by Defendants and flagged by the court as a likely AI-generated/fictitious authority cited in Plaintiff's Opposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sigal v. Croner?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Listed by Defendants and flagged by the court as a likely AI-generated/fictitious authority cited in Plaintiff's Opposition. Outcome: Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions.. The court flagged multiple authorities in Plaintiff's Opposition as likely AI-generated or inaccurate, preserving the unverified citations in the record but finding basis for concern after its own review. Defendants' counsel identified several suspect authorities (e.g., Pope v. Fellhauer, Wells v. Maroulis, Taylor v.…
- Why does Sigal v. Croner matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Court declined to impose sanctions now but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel and warned that future submission of inaccurate or AI-generated authorities will trigger a NRCP 11(c)(3) show-cause hearing and potential sanctions. in Nevada DC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Sigal v. Croner?
- 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 Sigal v. Croner 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.