Arrieta v. Cervantes
CA Arizona · Jul 15, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Arizona Court of Appeals sanctioned a pro se litigant for citing nonexistent case law ('State v. Gilman' and 'Silva v. De Mendoza') in an appellate brief. The court awarded the appellee reasonable attorney fees and costs under Rule 25, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., due to the frivolous nature of the arguments and the failure to provide valid legal authority.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant cited 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it..
- 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 Arrieta v. Cervantes, the CA Arizona addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it. The recorded procedural consequence is Adverse Costs Order. The entry is dated 2026-07-15. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
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.
Appellate review of a trial court's child support arrearage order and denial of a motion to vacate; sanction issued by the appellate court.
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 'State v. Gilman', a case the court identified as nonexistent and rejected reliance on it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Silva v. De Mendoza', another case the court identified as nonexistent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Arrieta v. Cervantes?
- The Arizona Court of Appeals sanctioned a pro se litigant for citing nonexistent case law ('State v. Gilman' and 'Silva v. De Mendoza') in an appellate brief. The court awarded the appellee reasonable attorney fees and costs under Rule 25, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., due to the frivolous nature of the arguments and the failure to provide valid legal authority.
- Why does Arrieta v. Cervantes 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 Arrieta v. Cervantes?
- 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 Arrieta v. Cervantes 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.