OLG Celle, 5 U 1/25
OLG Celle · Apr 29, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15, NJW-RR 2016, 328); court found the citation unverifiable in juris and beck-online and treated it as a Fehlzitat. Outcome: The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed.. The defendant's briefs contained multiple case citations that the court determined were 'Fehlzitate' (unverifiable) because they could not be found in juris or beck-online under the given parameters. The court flagged these fabricated citations, refused to rely on them, and based its legal assessment on other verified authorities and the parties' factual pleadings. No professional sanctions or fines were imposed.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and trial and records The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed. in OLG Celle. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15, NJW-RR 2016, 328); court found the citation unverifiable in juris and beck-online and treated it as a Fehlzitat. Outcome: The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed.. The defendant's briefs contained multiple case citations that the court determined were 'Fehlzitate' (unverifiable) because they could not be found in juris or beck-online under the given parameters. The court flagged these fabricated citations, refused to rely on them, and based its legal assessment on other verified authorities and the parties' factual pleadings. No professional sanctions or fines were imposed.
This matter connects fake citations and trial with The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed. in OLG Celle. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed.
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 | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15, NJW-RR 2016, 328); court found the citation unverifiable in juris and beck-online and treated it as a Fehlzitat.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Frankfurt decision (30.05.2018, 4 U 257/17, BeckRS 2018, 15994); court found the citation unverifiable in juris and beck-online and treated it as a Fehlzitat.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Düsseldorf decision (13.04.2017, I-6 U 271/16, BeckRS 2017, 112233); court found the citation unverifiable in juris and beck-online and treated it as a Fehlzitat.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG Koblenz decision (15.10.2020, 6 U 1261/19); court found the citation unverifiable in juris and beck-online and treated it as a Fehlzitat.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in OLG Celle, 5 U 1/25?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited an OLG München decision (12.11.2015, 23 U 2003/15, NJW-RR 2016, 328); court found the citation unverifiable in juris and beck-online and treated it as a Fehlzitat. Outcome: The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed.. The defendant's briefs contained multiple case citations that the court determined were 'Fehlzitate' (unverifiable) because they could not be found in juris or beck-online under the given parameters. The court flagged these fabricated citations, refused to rely on them, and based its legal assessment on other verified authorities and the parties' factual pleadings. No professional sanctions or fines were imposed.
- Why does OLG Celle, 5 U 1/25 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with The court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed. in OLG Celle. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about OLG Celle, 5 U 1/25?
- 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 OLG Celle, 5 U 1/25 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.