Kaspryak v. Stadarskyy

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Specifically, Appellant cites to “General Fin. Co. v. Archetto, 167 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 1961)” and “Lowrey v. Eastaff, 860 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2004).” See id. (some formatting altered). These citations are so nonsensical and disconnected from Appellant’s claims that we conclude that they are hallucinated citations. To the extent that Appellant has employed generative artificial intelligence (“generative AI” or “GAI”) tools to draft her brief, as indicated by her repeated misrepresentations of the meaning of valid statutes and precedential opinions as well as her reliance on hallucinated authority, we note that the use of GAI to draft legal filings (including by pro se litigants), without verification of the accuracy of the content so produced, may lead to misstatements and/or misrepresentations of legal authority. ... We note that the Atlantic Reporter citation “167 A.2d 306” leads to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion, Slott v. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 167 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1961), not to a Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion captioned “General Fin. Co. v. Archetto” as Appellant states. ... In fact, “Lowrey v. Eastaff” appears to be an entirely fabricated caption, coupled with a hallucinated citation.

Authorities cited in the passage: General Fin. Co. v. Archetto, 167 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 1961) · Lowrey v. Eastaff, 860 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2004) · Saber Healthcare Group, LLC v. Duchene, 350 A.3d 966 (Pa. Super. 2025) · Slott v. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 167 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1961) · General Finance Corp. v. Archetto, 176 A.2d 73 (R.I. 1961) · Commonwealth v. duPont, 860 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2004)