HomeCasesBeschluss 5 U 1/25

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Beschluss 5 U 1/25

OLG Celle · Apr 29, 2025

GermanyEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online. Outcome: Court treated the cited authorities as Fehlzitate (not verifiable) and did not rely on them.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Court treated the cited authorities as Fehlzitate (not verifiable) and did not rely on them; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: German courts will silently discard Fehlzitate—unverified citations waste advocacy even without formal sanction.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

German courts will silently discard Fehlzitate—unverified citations waste advocacy even without formal sanction.

Record details

CourtOLG Celle

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateApr 29, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeCourt treated the cited authorities as Fehlzitate (not verifiable) and did not rely on them

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Court treated the cited authorities as Fehlzitate (not verifiable) and did not rely on them

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Düsseldorf decision (13.04.2017, I-6 U 271/16) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Koblenz decision (15.10.2020, 6 U 1261/19) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Frankfurt decision (30.05.2018, 4 U 257/17) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Beschluss 5 U 1/25?: Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online. Outcome: Court treated the cited authorities as Fehlzitate (not verifiable) and did not rely on them.
Why does Beschluss 5 U 1/25 matter for legal AI risk?: German courts will silently discard Fehlzitate—unverified citations waste advocacy even without formal sanction.
What does the public record establish about Beschluss 5 U 1/25?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Beschluss 5 U 1/25 summary?: The recorded source is voris.wolterskluwer-online.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.

Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (2)D. Maryland · Jul 17, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home CentersM.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Izzeddin Ahmed Abdulghaffar Daghra v. Steve Hinkley, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Tekway, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc.N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)M J Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local MunicipalityLabour Court (Durban) · Jul 13, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

voris.wolterskluwer-online.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 record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

German courts will silently discard Fehlzitate—unverified citations waste advocacy even without formal sanction.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Düsseldorf decision (13.04.2017, I-6 U 271/16) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Koblenz decision (15.10.2020, 6 U 1261/19) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Frankfurt decision (30.05.2018, 4 U 257/17) which the court found to be a Fehlzitat and not retrievable on juris or beck-online.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Beschluss 5 U 1/25?

Why does Beschluss 5 U 1/25 matter for legal AI risk?

German courts will silently discard Fehlzitate—unverified citations waste advocacy even without formal sanction.

What does the public record establish about Beschluss 5 U 1/25?

Which source supports this Beschluss 5 U 1/25 summary?

The recorded source is voris.wolterskluwer-online.de. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.