Chenco v. Do-Fluoride
Chenco v. Do-Fluoride is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.
- Court
- D. Idaho
- Date
- August 22, 2025
- Party
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the order
- Outcome
- Motion for surreply denied; remand granted; counsel reminded of duties (no sanction imposed)
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty in this order.
What the record shows
The court denied the defendant's motion to file a surreply and granted the plaintiff's motion to remand. The court noted the defendant's surreply included a nonexistent quotation and other citation errors, reminded counsel of their duties under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, and cited a precedent ($1,500 in Hayes) only as an illustration. No monetary sanction was imposed and AI use was not confirmed.
This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.
Source documents
The test this filing did not run
Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.
Run a free reviewBack to the full tracker →