Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

Dorothea Bell v. Kelly Bell

·Superior Court of Pennsylvania·US-STATENoted, no consequenceprovisional

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.

Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Date
2026-05-11
Who used the AI
Litigant in person
AI tool
Not identified in the record
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
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
Last checked
2026-09-07

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

  • Tapscott v. Fariss, No. 25-1666 (Iowa Ct. App. 2026)2026-10-07 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · DismissalIn the Court of Appeals of Iowa, a self-represented appellant's final brief in a protective-order appeal contained multiple hallucinated case citations. After two earlier briefs were struck and the appellant failed to a…
  • Washington v. Justice, No. 2D2025-2678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · DismissalIn Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, self-represented appellants filed a brief citing eleven cases the court could not find and likely generated by AI. After an unavailing show-cause response and a pattern of f…
  • Shannon v. Shannon, 322 Neb. 451 (2026), No. S-25-5462026-10-02 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Filing struckIn Nebraska, the state Supreme Court struck a self-represented divorce litigant's appellate brief for fictitious citations produced by his admitted AI use. Extending Prososki v. Regan to unrepresented parties, it held s…
  • R. M. v. Mohr, 353 Or App 182 (2026), A1880922026-09-23 · Oregon Court of Appeals · FineIn Oregon, the Court of Appeals ordered a self-represented restraining-order appellant to pay $250 after his brief cited three fabricated cases he admitted came from AI. The court had threatened $1,500, at $500 per fake…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Dorothea Bell v. Kelly Bell”, safelegalai.com/tracker/dorothea-bell-v-kelly-bell (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →