Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
So-and-so v. v. Anonymous
Israel · May 26, 2025
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited non-existent case law; the court found some referenced judgments "do not exist at all" and warned about uncontrolled AI use. Outcome: AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it. The Family Court noted that one motion cited case law that does "not exist at all". This raised "concern about uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence technology," referencing recent Supreme Court guidance on the need for an appropriate judicial response to such instances.On appeal, the District Court acknowledged the Family Court's finding regarding the non-existent case law and the suspicion of AI use.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Israeli courts flagged fabricated cites but declined sanctions this time; next uncontrolled AI use will draw discipline under Supreme Court guidance.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited non-existent case law; the court found some referenced judgments "do not exist at all" and warned about uncontrolled AI use. Outcome: AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it. The Family Court noted that one motion cited case law that does "not exist at all". This raised "concern about uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence technology," referencing recent Supreme Court guidance on the need for an appropriate judicial response to such instances.On appeal, the District Court acknowledged the Family Court's finding regarding the non-existent case law and the suspicion of AI use. However, like the Family Court, it did not impose a separate sanction for this, as the appeal was dismissed primarily on the grounds of the delay and lack of merit concerning the protocol correction itself
Operational lesson
Israeli courts flagged fabricated cites but declined sanctions this time; next uncontrolled AI use will draw discipline under Supreme Court guidance.
Record details
CourtIsrael
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 26, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeAI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it
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
AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it
Correction behavior
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 | Applicant cited non-existent case law; the court found some referenced judgments "do not exist at all" and warned about uncontrolled AI use.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant claimed Courts Law s.68 allows protocol corrections "at any time" before final decision; the court held the statute imposes a 10-day limit from service.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant relied on Courts Law s.81 (correction of judgments) to amend a protocol; the court held s.81 is inapplicable to protocol corrections.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Applicant alleged "manual intervention" and tampering in the transcript causing omissions and distortions; the court found no specific or material discrepancies and deemed the claim unsupported.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in So-and-so v. v. Anonymous?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited non-existent case law; the court found some referenced judgments "do not exist at all" and warned about uncontrolled AI use. Outcome: AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it. The Family Court noted that one motion cited case law that does "not exist at all". This raised "concern about uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence technology," referencing recent Supreme Court guidance on the need for an appropriate judicial response to such instances.On appeal, the District Court acknowledged the Family Court's finding regarding the non-existent case law and the suspicion of AI use.…
- Why does So-and-so v. v. Anonymous matter for legal AI risk?
- Israeli courts flagged fabricated cites but declined sanctions this time; next uncontrolled AI use will draw discipline under Supreme Court guidance.
- What does the public record establish about So-and-so v. v. Anonymous?
- 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 So-and-so v. v. Anonymous 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.