Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union
SC Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Pennsylvania
- Record ID
- saber-v-navy-federal-credit-union-2026-01-14
- Observed outcome
- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's order denying the appellant's motion for title of vehicle, finding the appellant's claims waived due to inadequate briefing and lack of pertinent authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court found that the pro se appellant included multiple fabricated case citations in his brief, which the appellee attributed to generative AI. The court did not impose a sanction but affirmed the lower court's order, ruling that the appellant's failure to develop cogent arguments or cite legitimate authority resulted in the waiver of his claims on appeal.
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'D'Happart v. First Commonwealth Bank' with two reporter citations; the court found no such cases exist at those citations and said the authority did not support Appellant's argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained several other case citations that 'do not exist'; Appellee suggested the errors resulted from use of generative AI and the court noted multiple counterfeit authorities in the brief.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in SC Pennsylvania, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Lack_of_verification
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- generative artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County; the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's order denying the appellant's motion for title of vehicle.
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 referenced the appellee's suggestion that the errors were due to generative AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.