Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Bisher v. Civic
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · State appellate courts · PA · · No. 2582 EDA 2025 · memorandum opinion
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms summary judgment in a medical-malpractice appeal. A footnote identifies three cited cases that do not exist, reminds the self-represented appellants that authority must be pertinent, and warns that substantial brief defects can justify dismissal.
- Disposition
- The court affirmed summary judgment and admonished self-represented appellants over nonexistent and misleading appellate citations.
- Recorded conduct
- Self-represented appellants cited three nonexistent Pennsylvania cases and other misrepresented authority in an appellate brief. — outcome: warning; actor: litigant in person
- Canonical record
- Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
Appellants cite to two cases—one which is non-existent—for the rules that summary judgment may not be entered where discovery is incomplete or credibility issues remain. See id. at 40 (citing Gibson v. Bicknell, 668 A.2d 1370 (Pa. Super. 1995), and Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998)). ... This cited case does not exist.Elsewhere in their brief, Appellants cite to Gonzalez v. Procaccio Bros. Trucking Co., 268 A.3d 528 (Pa. Super. 2021), and In re Estate of Pittman, 636 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 1994), which also do not exist. We remind Appellants that litigants must cite to “pertinent” authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Such misstatements and/or misrepresentations, if further disseminated, undermine the accuracy and reliability of the law Appellants purport to reference. Moreover, we remind Appellants that we may dismiss an appeal if the brief defects are substantial. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Authorities cited in the passage: Gibson v. Bicknell, 668 A.2d 1370 (Pa. Super. 1995) · Gonzalez v. Procaccio Bros. Trucking Co., 268 A.3d 528 (Pa. Super. 2021) · In re Estate of Pittman, 636 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 1994) · Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) · Pa.R.A.P. 2101
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face