HomeCasesOrdinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC

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

Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC

C.A. Messina · Jan 9, 2026

ItalyEditorial impact: lowmisrepresented authoritytrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Alleged verbatim reproduction of substantial passages from an IUSLETTER article titled "Il contratto parla chiaro: sei un coobbligato" (16.12.2024) in the first-instance judgment; appellant contended judge copied text without autonomous reasoning.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Alleged verbatim reproduction of substantial passages from an IUSLETTER article titled "Il contratto parla chiaro: sei un coobbligato" (16.12.2024) in the first-instance judgment; appellant contended judge copied text without autonomous reasoning. || Misrepresented: Case Law | First-instance judgment cited a Corte d'Appello di Venezia decision as "Sent. n. 2065/2023 del 19.10.2023" for co-obligation doctrine; appellant's check found the named decision exists but with a different date (5 June 2025) and different subject-matter. || Misrepresented: Case Law | First-instance judgment invoked Cass. civ. n. 1548/2023 on the concept of dolo; appellant contended that that Supreme Court decision is inconferent to the matter addressed by the trial judge.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Judge filing issue in C.A. Messina, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Judge filing issue in C.A. Messina, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CourtC.A. Messina

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJan 9, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeJudge

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: Doctrinal Work | Alleged verbatim reproduction of substantial passages from an IUSLETTER article titled "Il contratto parla chiaro: sei un coobbligato" (16.12.2024) in the first-instance judgment; appellant contended judge copied text without autonomous reasoning.
Misrepresented: Case Law | First-instance judgment cited a Corte d'Appello di Venezia decision as "Sent. n. 2065/2023 del 19.10.2023" for co-obligation doctrine; appellant's check found the named decision exists but with a different date (5 June 2025) and different subject-matter.
Misrepresented: Case Law | First-instance judgment invoked Cass. civ. n. 1548/2023 on the concept of dolo; appellant contended that that Supreme Court decision is inconferent to the matter addressed by the trial judge.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC?: Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Alleged verbatim reproduction of substantial passages from an IUSLETTER article titled "Il contratto parla chiaro: sei un coobbligato" (16.12.2024) in the first-instance judgment; appellant contended judge copied text without autonomous reasoning.
Why does Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Judge filing issue in C.A. Messina, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC 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

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Judge filing issue in C.A. Messina, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | First-instance judgment cited a Corte d'Appello di Venezia decision as "Sent. n. 2065/2023 del 19.10.2023" for co-obligation doctrine; appellant's check found the named decision exists but with a different date (5 June 2025) and different subject-matter.

Misrepresented: Case Law | First-instance judgment invoked Cass. civ. n. 1548/2023 on the concept of dolo; appellant contended that that Supreme Court decision is inconferent to the matter addressed by the trial judge.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC?

Why does Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Judge filing issue in C.A. Messina, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

What does the public record establish about Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC?

Which source supports this Ordinanza n. 789-1/2025 RGAC 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.