Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Dorothea Bell v. Kelly Bell
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · State appellate courts · PA · · 2026 WL 1286509 · No. 1256 MDA 2025 · memorandum opinion
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania on 2026-05-11 vacated the portion of the custody order awarding primary physical custody, remanded, and noted the mother’s cited case was unlocatable in Dorothea Bell v. Kelly Bell. The self-represented mother filed a brief with one fabricated case citation.
- Disposition
- The custody order was vacated in part and remanded; the court noted that one cited case could not be located.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented appellant cited one case that did not exist or could not be located. The court noted the defect but imposed no sanction. — outcome: noted, no consequence; 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.
As will be borne out by our discussion infra, that would be a gross misreading of the burdens of proof for the § 5327(b) parental presumption. 3 Mother testified that she has a medical marijuana card, but the trial court reminded her that the Medical Marijuana Act does not permit individuals to smoke marijuana. 4 We note that our research indicates this case does not exist, at least as cited. See also Maternal Grandmother's brief at 21 (noting the cited case “has proven to be unlocatable”). 5 We recognize that Mother's prayer for relief includes a request that we find Maternal Grandmother lacks standing to seek custody. Notwithstanding that demand, Mother has made no argument in support thereof and her statement of questions cannot be read to advance any issue pertaining to Maternal Grandmother's standing.
compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face