AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesBeschluss 5 U 1/25
Evidence review: secondary source only. Only case-specific secondary coverage was accessible. It provides context, not independent proof of the underlying ruling.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Beschluss 5 U 1/25

OLG Celle · Apr 29, 2025

GermanyEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrialNone Adjudicated
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

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.

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
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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

OLG Celle, 5 U 1/25OLG Celle · Apr 29, 2025same court · fake citations + trialG.P. v. Jose Hernandez ArevaloW.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Santos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Morgan Cole v. Hobby Town Unlimited, Inc.C.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr.Supreme Court of India · Sep 2, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)