HomeCasesSmith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark

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

Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark

SC Nevada · Jan 13, 2026

NV / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner relied on Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas (127 Nev. 254, 255 P.3d 216 (2011)) to support that "oral pronouncements have no legal effect until reduced to writing and filed," but the court noted Ruiz does not concern that proposition. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner relied on Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas (127 Nev. 254, 255 P.3d 216 (2011)) to support that "oral pronouncements have no legal effect until reduced to writing and filed," but the court noted Ruiz does not concern that proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited "Alexander v. Lolavar, 127 Nev. 255 (2011)," but the court found no case by that name and the cited page corresponds to a different opinion.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

NevadaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtSC Nevada

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 13, 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

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner relied on Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas (127 Nev. 254, 255 P.3d 216 (2011)) to support that "oral pronouncements have no legal effect until reduced to writing and filed," but the court noted Ruiz does not concern that proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited "Alexander v. Lolavar, 127 Nev. 255 (2011)," but the court found no case by that name and the cited page corresponds to a different opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner relied on Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas (127 Nev. 254, 255 P.3d 216 (2011)) to support that "oral pronouncements have no legal effect until reduced to writing and filed," but the court noted Ruiz does not concern that proposition. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark?: 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 Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark 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.

Yanling Zhang v. Yanhui ZhangSC Nevada · Apr 22, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual TilleryD. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Edward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Preston House v. TH Foods, Inc.D. Nevada · Dec 11, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 10, 2025same jurisdiction · 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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited "Alexander v. Lolavar, 127 Nev. 255 (2011)," but the court found no case by that name and the cited page corresponds to a different opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark?

Why does Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.

What does the public record establish about Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark?

Which source supports this Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark 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.