HomeCasesJuerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors

CA Ireland · Mar 16, 2026

IrelandEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant's written submissions contained 'a few non-existent cases' and multiple wrong citations; the Court described these as hallucinations possibly generated by AI.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. 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 pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Ireland, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant's written submissions contained 'a few non-existent cases' and multiple wrong citations; the Court described these as hallucinations possibly generated by AI.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Ireland, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtCA Ireland

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMar 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant's written submissions contained 'a few non-existent cases' and multiple wrong citations; the Court described these as hallucinations possibly generated by AI.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant miscited Sheehan v. Talos Capital Ltd. as '[2023] IEHC 454' (the Court treated the citation as wrong and took the ground to refer to Sheehan v. Talos Capital Ltd. [2021] IECA 316).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors?: Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant's written submissions contained 'a few non-existent cases' and multiple wrong citations; the Court described these as hallucinations possibly generated by AI.
Why does Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in CA Ireland, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors?: 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 Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors 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.

P-Three Development, LLC v. Therm Flo, Inc.CA Illinois · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. James K. Bernard Jr.CA Illinois · Jun 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Christian Lavell Jennings v. Vandergriff HondaCA Texas · May 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Nisland Asset Investment, LLC v. Carissa Ann GerickeCA Iowa · Apr 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)O.K., LLC v. MelkaCA California (2d) · Apr 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · 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

Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant's written submissions contained 'a few non-existent cases' and multiple wrong citations; the Court described these as hallucinations possibly generated by AI.

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant's written submissions contained 'a few non-existent cases' and multiple wrong citations; the Court described these as hallucinations possibly generated by AI.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant miscited Sheehan v. Talos Capital Ltd. as '[2023] IEHC 454' (the Court treated the citation as wrong and took the ground to refer to Sheehan v. Talos Capital Ltd. [2021] IECA 316).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors?

Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant's written submissions contained 'a few non-existent cases' and multiple wrong citations; the Court described these as hallucinations possibly generated by AI.

Why does Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors?

Which source supports this Juerg von Geitz v. Kieran Kelly & Ors 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.