Tsafrir v. Goldberg
Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Israeli Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for leave to appeal and imposed a 3,000 ILS fine payable to the state treasury. The court sanctioned the applicant for repeatedly citing non-existent legal precedents and failing to verify the accuracy of her legal arguments despite prior judicial warnings.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Supreme Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
In Tsafrir v. Goldberg, the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed a pro se application for leave to appeal in a harassment-prevention case. The court found that the applicant, who identified as a law student, repeatedly cited non-existent judicial precedents in her filings. Despite prior warnings from the District Court regarding these fabricated citations, the applicant persisted in relying on them and accused the lower court of error. The Supreme Court emphasized that all litigants bear a duty to verify the existence and accuracy of legal authorities. Citing the severity of this conduct, particularly for an aspiring lawyer, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay 3,000 ILS in costs to the state treasury.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Supreme Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court refers to the applicant's reliance on non-existent precedents, implying the use of an external tool.
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court following a District Court judgment.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Tsafrir v. Goldberg?
- The Israeli Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for leave to appeal and imposed a 3,000 ILS fine payable to the state treasury. The court sanctioned the applicant for repeatedly citing non-existent legal precedents and failing to verify the accuracy of her legal arguments despite prior judicial warnings.
- Why does Tsafrir v. Goldberg matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Supreme Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Tsafrir v. Goldberg?
- 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 Tsafrir v. Goldberg 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.