Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark
SC Nevada · Jan 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Nevada
- Record ID
- smith-v-eighth-judicial-district-court-in-and-for-county-of-clark-2026-01-13
- Observed outcome
- Petition for writ of mandamus denied; formal warning issued regarding citation accuracy.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Nevada, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Original petition for a writ of mandamus denied by the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The source document does not name a specific tool, implying AI usage through the nature of the errors.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.