Agravo de Instrumento NPU 0032636-27.2025.8.16.0000 (Petry v. Evanlux Esquadrias Ltda.)
TJPR - 15ª Câmara Cível · Jun 24, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Agravantes cited precedents that were not found in the TJPR database; court determined these were invented by an AI tool and thus non-existent jurisprudence. Outcome: Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents).. The court found that the appellants (through their attorney) cited precedents that do not exist and were generated by an AI tool. For failing to verify the AI output and thereby risking misleading the court, the tribunal affirmed a 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and authorized sending an ofício to the OAB/PR to investigate the lawyer's conduct. The decision stresses the duty of care to review AI-produced material and cites similar precedents condemning the use of fabricated jurisprudence.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and trial and records Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents).. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents). in TJPR - 15ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Agravantes cited precedents that were not found in the TJPR database; court determined these were invented by an AI tool and thus non-existent jurisprudence. Outcome: Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents).. The court found that the appellants (through their attorney) cited precedents that do not exist and were generated by an AI tool. For failing to verify the AI output and thereby risking misleading the court, the tribunal affirmed a 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and authorized sending an ofício to the OAB/PR to investigate the lawyer's conduct. The decision stresses the duty of care to review AI-produced material and cites similar precedents condemning the use of fabricated jurisprudence.
This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents). in TJPR - 15ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents).
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Agravantes cited precedents that were not found in the TJPR database; court determined these were invented by an AI tool and thus non-existent jurisprudence.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court cited other decisions documenting AI-created fictitious judgments (invented judges and bogus process numbers) as comparable examples.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Agravo de Instrumento NPU 0032636-27.2025.8.16.0000 (Petry v. Evanlux Esquadrias Ltda.)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Agravantes cited precedents that were not found in the TJPR database; court determined these were invented by an AI tool and thus non-existent jurisprudence. Outcome: Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents).. The court found that the appellants (through their attorney) cited precedents that do not exist and were generated by an AI tool. For failing to verify the AI output and thereby risking misleading the court, the tribunal affirmed a 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and authorized sending an ofício to the OAB/PR to investigate the lawyer's conduct. The decision stresses the duty of care to review AI-produced material and cites similar precedents condemning the use of fabricated jurisprudence.
- Why does Agravo de Instrumento NPU 0032636-27.2025.8.16.0000 (Petry v. Evanlux Esquadrias Ltda.) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court upheld 5% fine for litigância de má-fé and ordered referral to OAB/PR for investigation (related to use of AI-generated, non-existent precedents). in TJPR - 15ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Agravo de Instrumento NPU 0032636-27.2025.8.16.0000 (Petry v. Evanlux Esquadrias Ltda.)?
- 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 NPU 0032636-27.2025.8.16.0000 (Petry v. Evanlux Esquadrias Ltda.) 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.