Jaclyn Cocco v. Rosario Palmieri, Jr.
SC Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Pennsylvania
- Record ID
- jaclyn-cocco-v-rosario-palmieri-jr-2026-05-29
- Observed outcome
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's custody order, rejecting the Appellant's arguments based on the identified legal inaccuracies.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania identified that the Appellant submitted fabricated case law and misrepresented existing authorities in his appellate brief. The court explicitly questioned whether these errors were the product of generative AI, though it did not impose a formal monetary or professional sanction, instead affirming the underlying custody order.
The court reasoned that the Appellant's cited authority either did not exist or did not support the propositions asserted. It noted that the provided citations led to unrelated opinions, such as 'Discover Bank v. Stucka,' and explicitly stated that the court was left to guess whether the counterfeit authority was the product of a chatbot.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of AI-generated hallucinations in appellate filings. It highlights the risk of 'counterfeit authority' and the court's willingness to explicitly flag potential AI misuse when counsel fails to verify the existence and accuracy of cited legal precedents.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (implied)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a Final Custody Order entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas; the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's decision.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court questioned if the counterfeit authority was the product of a chatbot.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.