AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSTC17832-2025
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

STC17832-2025

Corte Suprema de Justicia · Nov 5, 2025

ColombiaEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotescontracttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Supreme Court of Colombia quashed an appellate order because the lower court relied on two fabricated legal citations attributed to the Supreme Court. The court determined that the quoted passages were nonexistent, rendering the lower court's decision legally unsupported and a violation of due process.

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

The Colombian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema de Justicia) quashed an appellate order from the Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Sincelejo that had terminated a case due to tacit withdrawal. The Tribunal's decision relied on two specific legal citations attributed to the Supreme Court (STC13560-2023 and STC4734-2025). Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the quoted passages were nonexistent and did not appear in the referenced decisions. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's reliance on these fabricated quotes constituted a defect in motivation, as the ruling lacked a valid legal basis. The case highlights the risks of judicial reliance on unverified AI-generated content, leading to the invalidation of the lower court's decision.

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
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeJudge
OutcomeThe Supreme Court quashed the appellate order that had terminated the underlying executive proceeding.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The source implies AI usage through the nature of the fabricated quotes.

Procedural posture

The Supreme Court of Colombia reviewed a tutela action challenging an appellate order that had decreed the termination of an executive proceeding due to tacit withdrawal.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
The Supreme Court of Colombia quashed an appellate order because the lower court relied on two fabricated legal citations attributed to the Supreme Court. The court determined that the quoted passages were nonexistent, rendering the lower court's decision legally unsupported and a violation of due process.
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.

AndDone, LLC v. Shante Gaines; Reset Financial Group, LLCW.D. Missouri · Aug 25, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Brown v. Real Estate Capital of America et al.SC New York · Aug 7, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)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)