HomeCasesSTC17832-2025

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

STC17832-2025

Corte Suprema de Justicia · Nov 5, 2025

ColombiaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotescontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Tribunal attributed a literal excerpt to CSJ STC13560-2023 that does not appear in that decision; Supreme Court reviewed the full text and concluded the quoted paragraph is nonexistent. Outcome: Order quashed.

Why the court cared: False Quotes: Case Law | Tribunal attributed a literal excerpt to CSJ STC13560-2023 that does not appear in that decision; Supreme Court reviewed the full text and concluded the quoted paragraph is nonexistent. || False Quotes: Case Law | Tribunal attributed a literal excerpt to CSJ STC4734-2025 asserting that acts outside the term cannot interrupt it; Supreme Court found that exact formulation is not in STC4734-2025.
Why it matters now: When judges rely on AI-fabricated quotes, the opinion gets quashed; mandate clerk-level citation pulls for every attributed excerpt.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

When judges rely on AI-fabricated quotes, the opinion gets quashed; mandate clerk-level citation pulls for every attributed excerpt.

Record details

CourtCorte Suprema de Justicia

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateNov 5, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeJudge

OutcomeOrder quashed

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

Order quashed

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.

False Quotes: Case Law | Tribunal attributed a literal excerpt to CSJ STC13560-2023 that does not appear in that decision; Supreme Court reviewed the full text and concluded the quoted paragraph is nonexistent.
False Quotes: Case Law | Tribunal attributed a literal excerpt to CSJ STC4734-2025 asserting that acts outside the term cannot interrupt it; Supreme Court found that exact formulation is not in STC4734-2025.

Questions this record answers

What happened in STC17832-2025?: False Quotes: Case Law | Tribunal attributed a literal excerpt to CSJ STC13560-2023 that does not appear in that decision; Supreme Court reviewed the full text and concluded the quoted paragraph is nonexistent. Outcome: Order quashed.
Why does STC17832-2025 matter for legal AI risk?: When judges rely on AI-fabricated quotes, the opinion gets quashed; mandate clerk-level citation pulls for every attributed excerpt.
What does the public record establish about STC17832-2025?: 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 STC17832-2025 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.

Leafwell, Inc. v. The Doc App, Inc. (2)M.D. Florida · Jun 9, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Yehuda et al. v. G.G.A.B. Real Estate Initiative and Investments Ltd.Ashdod Small Claims Court · May 28, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)SWSZ Holding v. SZ GlobalSC Delaware · May 27, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lagac v. Capital One, N.A.C.D. California · May 22, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Saqib Kafeel v. CJDropshippingN.D. Illinois · May 22, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · 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

When judges rely on AI-fabricated quotes, the opinion gets quashed; mandate clerk-level citation pulls for every attributed excerpt.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Tribunal attributed a literal excerpt to CSJ STC4734-2025 asserting that acts outside the term cannot interrupt it; Supreme Court found that exact formulation is not in STC4734-2025.

Questions this record answers

What happened in STC17832-2025?

Why does STC17832-2025 matter for legal AI risk?

When judges rely on AI-fabricated quotes, the opinion gets quashed; mandate clerk-level citation pulls for every attributed excerpt.

What does the public record establish about STC17832-2025?

Which source supports this STC17832-2025 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.