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.
Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual Tillery
D. Nevada · Apr 6, 2026
NV / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Stanley v. University of Southern California for the proposition that service-of-process fees are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1); court found the citation does not support that proposition. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Stanley v. University of Southern California for the proposition that service-of-process fees are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1); court found the citation does not support that proposition. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
NevadaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Nevada
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateApr 6, 2026
AI
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
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Stanley v. University of Southern California for the proposition that service-of-process fees are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1); court found the citation does not support that proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Shum v. Intel Corp. as Ninth Circuit authority that pro se litigants may recover reasonable costs; court noted Shum is a Federal Circuit case and does not say what plaintiffs claim.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Boilermaker v. Skelly decision with a 2013 WL citation; court found no such cited decision exists and that the actual Boilermaker opinion (389 F. Supp. 2d 1222) does not say what plaintiffs claimed.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual Tillery?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Stanley v. University of Southern California for the proposition that service-of-process fees are taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1); court found the citation does not support that proposition. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual Tillery matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Nevada, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual Tillery?
- 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 Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual Tillery 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.