AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 15, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesA.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.

SC Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2026

PA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamilyNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania identified that a pro se litigant's brief contained fabricated and misrepresented case law, likely generated by AI. The court did not impose a monetary sanction but ruled that the arguments supported by these invalid citations were waived for failure to cite pertinent authority, leading to the affirmance of the lower court's dismissal.

Why the court cared
The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Brief cites a non-existent case, which the court determined does not exist and was likely generated by AI..
Why it matters now
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

In A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C., the SC Pennsylvania addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that brief cites a non-existent case, which the court determined does not exist and was likely generated by AI. The source record does not state a separate procedural consequence. The entry is dated 2026-03-13. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore PAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC Pennsylvania
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateMar 13, 2026
GE
AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the custody petition, finding the appellant's arguments waived due to the use of invalid and fabricated legal citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court suspected the use of generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, following the dismissal of a custody petition.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites a non-existent case, which the court determined does not exist and was likely generated by AI.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cites a reported Commonwealth v. Lyons at a reporter citation and for a proposition the court found unsupported; court found no case at that citation supporting appellant's use.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cites In re Ullman but attributes a proposition to it that the case does not stand for; court found the citation exists but was misused.

Questions this record answers

What happened in A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.?
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania identified that a pro se litigant's brief contained fabricated and misrepresented case law, likely generated by AI. The court did not impose a monetary sanction but ruled that the arguments supported by these invalid citations were waived for failure to cite pertinent authority, leading to the affirmance of the lower court's dismissal.
Why does A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C. matter for legal AI risk?
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C.?
Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this A.C. Appellant v. H.D. AND J.C. 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.

Jaclyn Cocco v. Rosario Palmieri, Jr.SC Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityDorothea Bell v. Kelly BellSC Pennsylvania · May 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJessica Baker v. Ryan Joseph BakerSC Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBisher v. Civic, et al.SC Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSaber v. Navy Federal Credit UnionSC Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBirsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations