What happened

  • Andrew and Theresa Sabatini challenged installation of a smart meter at their home. The PUC dismissed their complaint with prejudice, and they petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review without a lawyer.
  • On their argument that the utility is a state actor for search-and-seizure purposes, they cited two decisions: "Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Israel, 356 A.2d 325 (Pa. 1976)" for the idea that utilities perform functions "imbued with the public interest," and "Kremer v. Cox, 114 A.2d 509 (Pa. 1955)" for the idea that constitutional protections "cannot be evaded" by handing authority to a private entity.
  • The court said both cases, "as cited, do not appear to exist." A real PUC v. Israel decision exists at 52 A.2d 317 (Pa. 1947), but it concerns the Commission seeking to enjoin an uncertified taxicab service and has no bearing on state action.
  • The court added that the petitioners' amended brief and amended reply brief "are rife with citations to other cases that do not exist and/or non-existent quotations from actual cases." It did not list them.
  • The opinion does not say that AI was used, and it does not report any response from the petitioners about where the citations came from.

What the court said

The court rejected every argument on the merits: smart meters are mandated system-wide under controlling Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent (Povacz II), the utility is not a state actor under the court's earlier Hughes decision, and the denial of a briefing extension did not violate due process.

On the citations, the court wrote: "we have serious questions about the authenticity of the Petitioners' citations, which begs the question from whence they came" (n.10, p. 16). It cautioned the petitioners "not to cite or otherwise rely on non-existent cases in violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure," citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), which requires pertinent authorities.

No fine, striking of briefs, or fee award followed. The warning sits in footnote 10, and the order simply affirms the PUC.

What it means for your firm

  • Courts are catching bad citations in the margins of merits opinions, not only in sanctions orders. A footnote can put your opponent's habits, or your own, on a public record.
  • The court's check was concrete: it found a real case with the same name at a different cite and explained why it did not fit. That is the check your team should run.
  • The fabricated-quote problem was broader than the two named cases. The court said the briefs were "rife" with others, so checking a few authorities is not enough.
  • Our reading: this was a light response in part because the court rejected the arguments anyway. If a bad citation had mattered to the result, a firm should not assume the same leniency.
  • Our reading: the court raised "from whence they came" without finding AI use. If you represent a party opposite a pro se filer, you may get further by pointing to specific nonexistent cases than by alleging AI.

What to do Monday

  1. When a brief cites a state-court case on a constitutional or state-action point, pull the reporter page and confirm the case name, year and proposition before it goes out.
  2. If you find a real case with the same name at a different citation, note it in your brief or response, as the court did here, so the judge sees the mismatch.
  3. Check every quotation, not only case existence, because the court flagged "non-existent quotations from actual cases."
  4. In your opposition brief to a pro se filing, list the nonexistent or misquoted authorities in a short table and cite the court's rule on pertinent authority, such as Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) in Pennsylvania appellate courts.

Sources

Questions and answers

Did the court sanction the petitioners?

No. It issued a caution only, not to "cite or otherwise rely on non-existent cases." It affirmed the PUC's order against them on the merits.

Which citations did the court say do not exist?

Pa. PUC v. Israel at 356 A.2d 325 (Pa. 1976) and Kremer v. Cox at 114 A.2d 509 (Pa. 1955). The court said other citations and quotations in the amended briefs were also nonexistent or false, but it did not name them.

Did the court say the petitioners used AI?

No. The opinion questions where the citations "came from" but does not mention AI.

Operational information, not legal advice. Facts come from the court record linked under Sources, read on Oct 21, 2026. The reading of what it means for your firm is ours. A source link does not replace the full docket or later history.