Woodley v. Gottschall
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
SC Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited In re G.B.K. as a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, but the cited page contained headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case and no reported Pennsylvania case with that caption existed. Outcome: The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed in SC Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited In re G.B.K. as a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, but the cited page contained headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case and no reported Pennsylvania case with that caption existed. Outcome: The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed in SC Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
AI tool read from the primary court record (2026-10-24): open the court record.
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited In re G.B.K. as a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, but the cited page contained headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case and no reported Pennsylvania case with that caption existed.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited Commonwealth v. Drahus as a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, but the cited page was the beginning of a New Hampshire constructive-trust case and no reported Pennsylvania case with that caption existed.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Woodley v. Gottschall?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited In re G.B.K. as a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, but the cited page contained headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case and no reported Pennsylvania case with that caption existed. Outcome: The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed.
- Why does Woodley v. Gottschall matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court found two cited cases non-existent (In re G.B.K. and Commonwealth v. Drahus); the First Amendment question, which relied on one of them, was held not preserved, the sufficiency challenge was decided on the merits, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed in SC Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Woodley v. Gottschall?
- 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 Woodley v. Gottschall 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.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.