Agravo de Instrumento nº 5059805-76.2025.8.24.0000
TJ San Catarina · Sep 16, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited several non-existent STJ and state-court precedents (process numbers that do not correspond to real decisions); court found these authorities fabricated. Outcome: Monetary Fine. The relator identified that the appellant-lawyer cited multiple jurisprudential authorities and a doctrinal passage that do not exist or do not contain the quoted text. The court concluded these were fabricated or misattributed authorities — likely produced by indiscriminate use of AI — and held the behavior amounted to litigância de má-fé (breach of duties in arts. 77 and 80 CPC). As sanction for the hallucinated/fictitious citations the court imposed a monetary penalty for litigância de má-fé and rejected the agravo interno. The opinion stresses the duty of candor and caution when using AI and the need to verify authorities.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Monetary Fine. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Monetary Fine in TJ San Catarina. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited several non-existent STJ and state-court precedents (process numbers that do not correspond to real decisions); court found these authorities fabricated. Outcome: Monetary Fine. The relator identified that the appellant-lawyer cited multiple jurisprudential authorities and a doctrinal passage that do not exist or do not contain the quoted text. The court concluded these were fabricated or misattributed authorities — likely produced by indiscriminate use of AI — and held the behavior amounted to litigância de má-fé (breach of duties in arts. 77 and 80 CPC). As sanction for the hallucinated/fictitious citations the court imposed a monetary penalty for litigância de má-fé and rejected the agravo interno. The opinion stresses the duty of candor and caution when using AI and the need to verify authorities.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Monetary Fine in TJ San Catarina. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Monetary Fine
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited several non-existent STJ and state-court precedents (process numbers that do not correspond to real decisions); court found these authorities fabricated.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a passage to AgInt no AREsp 1.518.381/RJ that the court found absent from that decision (false quotation / misattribution).
- False Quotes: Doctrinal Work | Claimed a specific sentence appears on page 284 of Humberto Theodoro Júnior's Curso de Direito Processual Civil (66ª ed.); court could not find that quotation in the cited doctrinal source.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Agravo de Instrumento nº 5059805-76.2025.8.24.0000?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited several non-existent STJ and state-court precedents (process numbers that do not correspond to real decisions); court found these authorities fabricated. Outcome: Monetary Fine. The relator identified that the appellant-lawyer cited multiple jurisprudential authorities and a doctrinal passage that do not exist or do not contain the quoted text. The court concluded these were fabricated or misattributed authorities — likely produced by indiscriminate use of AI — and held the behavior amounted to litigância de má-fé (breach of duties in arts. 77 and 80 CPC). As sanction for the hallucinated/fictitious citations the court imposed a monetary penalty for litigância de má-fé and rejected the agravo interno. The opinion stresses the duty of candor and caution when using AI and the need to verify authorities.
- Why does Agravo de Instrumento nº 5059805-76.2025.8.24.0000 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Monetary Fine in TJ San Catarina. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Agravo de Instrumento nº 5059805-76.2025.8.24.0000?
- 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 Agravo de Instrumento nº 5059805-76.2025.8.24.0000 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.