HomeCasesI FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny · Jun 23, 2026

PolandEditorial impact: lowmisrepresented authoritytrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik wskazał I GZ 164/22 jako dowód potępiający nadmierny formalizm i obowiązek uwzględniania akt; NSA stwierdził, że przytoczone postanowienie nie odnosiło się do wstrzymania wykonania ani nie zawierało przedstawionych tez.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether cited material supported the proposition attributed to it. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects misrepresented authority and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects misrepresented authority and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtNaczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJun 23, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

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

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

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik wskazał I GZ 164/22 jako dowód potępiający nadmierny formalizm i obowiązek uwzględniania akt; NSA stwierdził, że przytoczone postanowienie nie odnosiło się do wstrzymania wykonania ani nie zawierało przedstawionych tez.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik powołał się na postanowienie II FZ 230/17 jako potwierdzające obowiązek uwzględniania materiałów z akt administracyjnych przy wniosku o wstrzymanie wykonania; NSA stwierdził, że data i przypisane stanowisko są błędne i postanowienie nie dotyczyło tej problematyki.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik cytował II GZ 452/18 rzekomo potwierdzające pogląd o wstępnym charakterze oceny uprawdopodobnienia; NSA ustalił, że przytoczona treść i data są niezgodne z realnym uzasadnieniem tego postanowienia.

Questions this record answers

What happened in I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik wskazał I GZ 164/22 jako dowód potępiający nadmierny formalizm i obowiązek uwzględniania akt; NSA stwierdził, że przytoczone postanowienie nie odnosiło się do wstrzymania wykonania ani nie zawierało przedstawionych tez.
Why does I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects misrepresented authority and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA?: 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 I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA 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.

Evans v. Robertson (4)E.D. Michigan · Jul 21, 2026misrepresented authority + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home CentersM.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2026misrepresented authority + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County AssessorTax Court Indiana · Jul 16, 2026misrepresented authority + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026misrepresented authority + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lohbeck v. CSL Plasma Inc.E.D. California · Jul 16, 2026misrepresented authority + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)M J Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local MunicipalityLabour Court (Durban) · Jul 13, 2026misrepresented authority + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

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 document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. 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

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik powołał się na postanowienie II FZ 230/17 jako potwierdzające obowiązek uwzględniania materiałów z akt administracyjnych przy wniosku o wstrzymanie wykonania; NSA stwierdził, że data i przypisane stanowisko są błędne i postanowienie nie dotyczyło tej problematyki.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Pełnomocnik cytował II GZ 452/18 rzekomo potwierdzające pogląd o wstępnym charakterze oceny uprawdopodobnienia; NSA ustalił, że przytoczona treść i data są niezgodne z realnym uzasadnieniem tego postanowienia.

Questions this record answers

What happened in I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA?

Why does I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA?

Which source supports this I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA 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.