Which source supports this Smith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Board 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.

HomeCasesSmith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Board

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Smith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Board

CA Arizona · Oct 6, 2026

AZ / state Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority administrative Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that Smith’s AI-assisted filing cited a nonexistent or hallucinated case, but the decision did not identify the case or citation. Outcome: Admonishment.

Why the court cared: The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Admonishment. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Admonishment in CA Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that Smith’s AI-assisted filing cited a nonexistent or hallucinated case, but the decision did not identify the case or citation. Outcome: Admonishment.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Admonishment in CA Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtCA Arizona

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment

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

Admonishment

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that Smith’s AI-assisted filing cited a nonexistent or hallucinated case, but the decision did not identify the case or citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | The court stated that the filing also cited other cases that were not directly pertinent to the legal contentions for which they were cited.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Smith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Board?: Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that Smith’s AI-assisted filing cited a nonexistent or hallucinated case, but the decision did not identify the case or citation. Outcome: Admonishment.
Why does Smith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Board matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Admonishment in CA Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Smith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Board?: 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 Smith v. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Local Board 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.

Fairrow v. EastenCA Arizona · Aug 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In the Matter of the Estate of KuerschnerCA Arizona · Mar 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In re the Matter of: Abius Rosas CarreonCA Arizona · Feb 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Arrieta v. CervantesCA Arizona · Jul 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Estate of ClaxtonCA Arizona · May 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations In the Matter of the Estate of Arturo LopezCA Arizona · Feb 27, 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 Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Oct 9, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Oct 9, 2026; latest tracked decision Oct 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA Arizona profile Explore jurisdiction

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