In re Marriage of Maslii v. Ivanova
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
CA Illinois (1d) · Sep 22, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited People v. Jones for the proposition that an order conflicting with a protective order is void ab initio, but the cited case does not exist. Outcome: Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43).
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43) in CA Illinois (1d). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited People v. Jones for the proposition that an order conflicting with a protective order is void ab initio, but the cited case does not exist. Outcome: Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43).
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43) in CA Illinois (1d). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43)
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 | The brief cited People v. Jones for the proposition that an order conflicting with a protective order is void ab initio, but the cited case does not exist.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief cited People v. Rodriguez to support the proposition that a contempt punishment requires identification of the order being violated. The court found that Rodriguez concerns a certificate-of-innocence petition arising from a vacated murder conviction and contains no discussion of contempt or the asserted proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The court found that two additional cited authorities did not exist, although the opinion did not identify them by name.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The court found that thirteen additional existing authorities were cited for propositions they did not support, although the opinion did not identify each citation by name.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re Marriage of Maslii v. Ivanova?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The brief cited People v. Jones for the proposition that an order conflicting with a protective order is void ab initio, but the cited case does not exist. Outcome: Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43).
- Why does In re Marriage of Maslii v. Ivanova matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the appellate court declined to impose penalties on the self-represented litigant this time and warned that any future filing with invented citations will lead to further proceedings and penalties (Ill. App. 1st Dist., PDF pp. 16-17, paras. 42-43) in CA Illinois (1d). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about In re Marriage of Maslii v. Ivanova?
- 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 In re Marriage of Maslii v. Ivanova 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.