Woodley v. Gottschall
SC Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Pennsylvania
- Record ID
- woodley-v-gottschall-2026-09-01
- Observed 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
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.