APELAÇÃO CÍVEL NPU 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014
TJPR · Jul 22, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a precedent identified as 'ApCv 2003.001444-6, de Biguaçu, rel. Desa. Salete Silva Sommariva' which the court could not locate in jurisprudence databases and found likely invented or copied from an external website. Outcome: Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências.. The appellate brief contained citations and ementas the court could not locate in jurisprudence databases; the court found indications the material was invented (''jurisprudência criativa''), possibly produced by an AI or copied from an external website, and therefore not verifiable. The court treated these fabricated citations as part of a broader failure to specifically impugn the judgment (violation of dialeticity), declined to know the appeal, and directed that the OAB/PR be notified to take any appropriate measures.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and trial and records Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências. in TJPR. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a precedent identified as 'ApCv 2003.001444-6, de Biguaçu, rel. Desa. Salete Silva Sommariva' which the court could not locate in jurisprudence databases and found likely invented or copied from an external website. Outcome: Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências.. The appellate brief contained citations and ementas the court could not locate in jurisprudence databases; the court found indications the material was invented (''jurisprudência criativa''), possibly produced by an AI or copied from an external website, and therefore not verifiable. The court treated these fabricated citations as part of a broader failure to specifically impugn the judgment (violation of dialeticity), declined to know the appeal, and directed that the OAB/PR be notified to take any appropriate measures.
This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências. in TJPR. 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.
Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências.
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 | Appellant cited a precedent identified as 'ApCv 2003.001444-6, de Biguaçu, rel. Desa. Salete Silva Sommariva' which the court could not locate in jurisprudence databases and found likely invented or copied from an external website.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant reproduced an ementa purportedly from an acórdão deste Tribunal without case number, relator or date; court could not verify the ementa and treated it as likely invented jurisprudence.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in APELAÇÃO CÍVEL NPU 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a precedent identified as 'ApCv 2003.001444-6, de Biguaçu, rel. Desa. Salete Silva Sommariva' which the court could not locate in jurisprudence databases and found likely invented or copied from an external website. Outcome: Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências.. The appellate brief contained citations and ementas the court could not locate in jurisprudence databases; the court found indications the material was invented (''jurisprudência criativa''), possibly produced by an AI or copied from an external website, and therefore not verifiable. The court treated these fabricated citations as part of a broader failure to specifically impugn the judgment (violation of dialeticity), declined to know the appeal, and directed that the OAB/PR be notified to take any appropriate measures.
- Why does APELAÇÃO CÍVEL NPU 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Court found cited precedents could not be verified and likely invented (AI-generated); did not know the appeal (manifestly inadmissible) and ordered notification to OAB/PR for providências. in TJPR. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about APELAÇÃO CÍVEL NPU 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014?
- 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 APELAÇÃO CÍVEL NPU 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 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.