Woodley v. Gottschall
Superior Court of 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 identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed.. In his pro se appellate brief, Gottschall cited In re G.B.K., 720 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 1998), and Commonwealth v. Drahus, 663 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super. 1995). The Superior Court determined that neither was a reported Pennsylvania case: the first citation led to headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case, and the second citation led to the beginning of a New Hampshire constructive-trust case. The court gave no merits consideration to the First Amendment claim supported by the nonexistent Drahus citation because the claim was also unpreserved, and affirmed the contempt judgment.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records The court identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, 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 identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed. in Superior Court of 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 identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed.. In his pro se appellate brief, Gottschall cited In re G.B.K., 720 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 1998), and Commonwealth v. Drahus, 663 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super. 1995). The Superior Court determined that neither was a reported Pennsylvania case: the first citation led to headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case, and the second citation led to the beginning of a New Hampshire constructive-trust case. The court gave no merits consideration to the First Amendment claim supported by the nonexistent Drahus citation because the claim was also unpreserved, and affirmed the contempt judgment.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed. in Superior Court of Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The court identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, 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 identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed.. In his pro se appellate brief, Gottschall cited In re G.B.K., 720 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 1998), and Commonwealth v. Drahus, 663 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super. 1995). The Superior Court determined that neither was a reported Pennsylvania case: the first citation led to headnotes for a New Jersey landlord-tenant case, and the second citation led to the beginning of a New Hampshire constructive-trust case. The court gave no merits consideration to the First Amendment claim supported by the nonexistent Drahus citation because the claim was also unpreserved, and affirmed the contempt judgment.
- Why does Woodley v. Gottschall matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with The court identified the citations as nonexistent; the related claims were waived, and the judgment of sentence was affirmed. in Superior Court of 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.