Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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.
Dog Rights v. Ministry of Agriculture
High Court · Feb 28, 2025
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited multiple judicial proceedings that could not be located in Nevo or on the judiciary website; petitioner failed to append the judgments despite a court directive, leading the Court to infer they do not exist. Outcome: Petition dismissed on threshold grounds for lack of clean hands and inadequate legal foundation. Petitioner ordered to pay costs.
- Why the court cared
- Justice Noam Sohlberg, writing for the panel, observed that citing fictitious legal authorities—whether by AI or not—is as egregious as factual misrepresentation. "there is no justification for distinguishing, factually, between one form of deception and another. Deception that would justify the dismissal of a petition due to lack of clean hands—such deception, whether of this kind or that—is invalid in its essence; both forms demand proper judicial response. Their legal identity is the same."
- Why it matters now
- Failing to produce cited judgments when the court demands them is treated as bad-faith conduct, not mere error.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited multiple judicial proceedings that could not be located in Nevo or on the judiciary website; petitioner failed to append the judgments despite a court directive, leading the Court to infer they do not exist. Outcome: Petition dismissed on threshold grounds for lack of clean hands and inadequate legal foundation. Petitioner ordered to pay costs.
AI Use
The judgment refers repeatedly to use of “AI-based websites” and “artificial intelligence hallucinations,” and quotes prior decisions warning against reliance on AI without verification. Although no specific tool was named, the Court inferred use based on the stylistic pattern and total absence of real citations. Petitioner provided no clarification and ultimately sought to withdraw the petition once challenged.
Hallucination Details
The legal authorities cited in the petition included:Case names and citations that do not exist in Israeli legal databases or official court archivesQuotations and doctrinal references attributed to rulings that were entirely fictitiousSystematic internal inconsistencies and citation errors typical of AI-generated legal writingThe Court made efforts to locate the decisions independently but failed, and the petitioner never supplied the sources after being ordered to do so.
Ruling/Sanction
The Court dismissed the petition in limine (on threshold grounds), citing “lack of clean hands” and “deficient legal infrastructure.” It imposed a ₪7,000 costs order against the petitioner and referred to the growing body of jurisprudence on AI hallucinations. The Court explicitly warned that future petitions tainted by similar conduct would face harsher responses, including possible professional discipline.
Key Judicial Reasoning
Justice Noam Sohlberg, writing for the panel, observed that citing fictitious legal authorities—whether by AI or not—is as egregious as factual misrepresentation. "there is no justification for distinguishing, factually, between one form of deception and another. Deception that would justify the dismissal of a petition due to lack of clean hands—such deception, whether of this kind or that—is invalid in its essence; both forms demand proper judicial response. Their legal identity is the same."
Operational lesson
Failing to produce cited judgments when the court demands them is treated as bad-faith conduct, not mere error.
Record details
CourtHigh Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 28, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomePetition dismissed on threshold grounds for lack of clean hands and inadequate legal foundation. Petitioner ordered to pay costs
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
Petition dismissed on threshold grounds for lack of clean hands and inadequate legal foundation. Petitioner ordered to pay costs
Correction behavior
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 | Petition cited multiple judicial proceedings that could not be located in Nevo or on the judiciary website; petitioner failed to append the judgments despite a court directive, leading the Court to infer they do not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court stated that, as in Plonit, the petition included quotes that 'never existed,' indicating likely AI-generated sourcing.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Dog Rights v. Ministry of Agriculture?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited multiple judicial proceedings that could not be located in Nevo or on the judiciary website; petitioner failed to append the judgments despite a court directive, leading the Court to infer they do not exist. Outcome: Petition dismissed on threshold grounds for lack of clean hands and inadequate legal foundation. Petitioner ordered to pay costs.
- Why does Dog Rights v. Ministry of Agriculture matter for legal AI risk?
- Failing to produce cited judgments when the court demands them is treated as bad-faith conduct, not mere error.
- What does the public record establish about Dog Rights v. Ministry of Agriculture?
- 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 Dog Rights v. Ministry of Agriculture 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.