HomeCasesBeschluss 2-13 S 56/24

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24

LG Frankfurt a. M. · Sep 25, 2025

GermanyEditorial impact: lowfabricated quotestrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Why the court cared: The retrieved public materials characterize the order as addressing AI-hallucinated BGH quotations in a procedural dispute. They do not provide enough extracted text here to summarize the court’s complete reasoning safely.
Why it matters now: It is a useful, source-linked European record, but also demonstrates the need to separate searchable metadata from details that require the complete order.

Why this matter is tracked

Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 is a September 25, 2025 decision of the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, published through the Hessian legal database. Public case metadata and legal-database summaries identify the matter as involving alleged AI hallucinations of German Federal Court of Justice decisions in a lawyer’s written submission. The retrieved directory material identifies the case number, court, date, and procedural lineage from the Amtsgericht Gelnhausen, and characterizes the issue as non-existent or inaccurate BGH quotations. It also indicates that the dispute was procedural and connected to the value in controversy rather than a reported merits holding on AI. The official database URL is the appropriate source for the decision. Because the full-text order was not programmatically available in this pass, this enrichment does not attribute a particular AI tool, assert a disciplinary sanction, or reconstruct judicial reasoning beyond the published case characterization.

Operational lesson

Verbatim quotes from high courts must be checked against the original before use.

Record details

CourtLG Frankfurt a. M.

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateSep 25, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | verbatim quotations from the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) that did not even exist

Questions this record answers

What happened in Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24?: Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 is a September 25, 2025 decision of the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, published through the Hessian legal database. Public case metadata and legal-database summaries identify the matter as involving alleged AI hallucinations of German Federal Court of Justice decisions in a lawyer’s written submission. The retrieved directory material identifies the case number, court, date, and procedural lineage from the Amtsgericht Gelnhausen, and characterizes the issue as non-existent or inaccurate BGH quotations. It also indicates that the dispute was procedural and connected to the value in controversy rather than a reported merits holding on AI.…
Why does Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 matter for legal AI risk?: It is a useful, source-linked European record, but also demonstrates the need to separate searchable metadata from details that require the complete order.
What does the public record establish about Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24?: The official database page and directories establish case identity and topic. The full reasons were not retrieved in this pass, so detailed quotation, intent, and outcome claims remain outside this summary.
Which source supports this Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 summary?: The recorded source is rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit UnionW.D. Washington · Jul 15, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.D. Nevada · Jul 13, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (2)S.D. New York · Jul 10, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Kevin Leiske et al. v. Robert Gregory Kidd et al.Delaware Ch. · Jul 1, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Susan Elizabeth Duve v. William Charles Forrest, et al.S.D. Texas · Jun 30, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Nady v. Al Sadi, 2026 ONSC 3760Ontario SCJ · Jun 26, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

The official database page and directories establish case identity and topic. The full reasons were not retrieved in this pass, so detailed quotation, intent, and outcome claims remain outside this summary.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Verbatim quotes from high courts must be checked against the original before use.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24?

Why does Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 matter for legal AI risk?

It is a useful, source-linked European record, but also demonstrates the need to separate searchable metadata from details that require the complete order.

What does the public record establish about Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24?

Which source supports this Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 summary?

The recorded source is rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.