AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSmith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
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 authorityfamilyWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus and issued a formal warning to the pro se petitioner. The court found that the petitioner cited non-existent case law and misrepresented the holdings of existing authorities, requiring the petitioner to ensure the accuracy of all future legal citations.

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

In an original petition for a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied the petitioner's request for relief regarding alleged procedural irregularities in a child custody matter. The court determined that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary intervention was warranted. Additionally, the court identified that the petitioner cited non-existent or misrepresented legal authorities to support his arguments. Specifically, the petitioner cited a non-existent case, 'Alexander v. Lolavar,' and misattributed a proposition regarding oral pronouncements to 'Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas.' Consequently, the court issued a formal warning to the petitioner, mandating that all future citations to decisional law and authorities must be verified for accuracy before filing.

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
Explore NVOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC Nevada
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 13, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomePetition for writ of mandamus denied; formal warning issued regarding citation accuracy.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source document does not name a specific tool, implying AI usage through the nature of the errors.

Procedural posture

Original petition for a writ of mandamus denied by the Supreme Court of Nevada.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
The Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus and issued a formal warning to the pro se petitioner. The court found that the petitioner cited non-existent case law and misrepresented the holdings of existing authorities, requiring the petitioner to ensure the accuracy of all future legal citations.
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 authoritySeeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsWendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual TilleryD. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsEdward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.D. Nevada · Mar 31, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsPreston House v. TH Foods, Inc.D. Nevada · Dec 11, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsJames Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.D. Nevada · Dec 10, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations