Sanction teardown · Nevada DC, USA · 2025-08-06

CommNV, LLC v. Uprise, LLC

What happened

In Nevada DC, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Court could not locate the cited opinion and found no supporting language; the citation appears fabricated.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Court could not find the cited decision or quoted language; the opinion as cited appears fictitious.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Court could not locate a decision matching the citation or the quoted language; the citation appears fabricated.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Court could not find the cited opinion or the quoted language in Westlaw; the decision appears fictitious.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Citation contains chronological and citation errors and the quoted language does not appear in any located decision; court deems it fictitious.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Court located no matching federal decision and the cited Westlaw number corresponds to an unrelated case; the federal Transamerica citation appears fabricated.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Court could not locate any decision matching the citation or quoted language; the decision appears fictitious.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Court could not find the cited case and the quotation does not appear in any located authority; the citation appears fictitious.
• False Quotes (Case Law)
  Buzz Stew is a real Nevada decision but the quoted language Uprise provided does not appear in the opinion.
• False Quotes (Case Law)
  Calloway is a real Nevada decision but the specific language Uprise quotes is not found in the opinion.
• False Quotes (Case Law)
  Cates is a real decision; similar language appears in a concurrence but the exact quoted language is not in the published opinion as cited.
• Misrepresented (Case Law)
  Crane is real but does not support the notice-pleading proposition Uprise attributes to it; the decision was misrepresented.
• Misrepresented (Case Law)
  Fidelity & Deposit is a real case but Uprise's pin cite references a non-existent page and the case does not stand for the proposition cited.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Order to Explain

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2357/30_-_CommNV_LLC_v_Uprise_LLC.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).