Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (state)

In re Estate of Pangelinan

·Supreme Court of Guam·US-STATEWarningprovisional

The Supreme Court of Guam observes that two nonexistent citations in a self-represented probate appellant’s brief may be attributable to generative AI. Considering pro se status and a first appearance, it finds sanctions unwarranted but reiterates final-submission duties. Docket CVA25-007.

Court
Supreme Court of Guam
Date
2026-07-15
Who used the AI
Litigant in person
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Schacher’s opening brief contained two nonexistent citations that the court said may be attributed to generative artificial intelligence use.
Outcome
Warning
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

  • State v. Presti, No. CAAP-24-0000826 (Haw. Ct. App.)2026-08-31 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · WarningOn a Hawaii criminal appeal, self-represented appellant Cody Presti filed an opening brief citing 95 cases, 11 of which the court could not locate; six citations pointed to unrelated decisions. The Intermediate Court of…
  • Noble v. WMC Mortgage Corp., 2026 IL App (1st) 251168-U2026-08-28 · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District · WarningIn Illinois, self-represented litigant Sanja Noble's mortgage appeal brief included a hallucinated citation to Ferguson v. Georges for the standard of review. The Appellate Court found the citation actually led to Peopl…
  • Salloum v. Department of Transportation, No. 25CA1748 (Colo. App.)2026-08-27 · Colorado Court of Appeals · WarningIn Colorado, self-represented appellant Ayman Salloum filed an opening brief citing three authorities the Court of Appeals could not verify, including one dated in the future. Applying Al-Hamim's warning on generative-A…
  • Asiedu v. Eastlund, Nos. A25-2106, A26-0532 (Minn. Ct. App.)2026-09-08 · Minnesota Court of Appeals · SanctionsIn Minnesota Court of Appeals, self-represented litigant Michael Asiedu admitted he used artificial intelligence for research and did not verify citations. The district court found the filings cited non-existent cases o…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “In re Estate of Pangelinan”, safelegalai.com/tracker/in-re-estate-of-pangelinan (accessed 2026-09-11). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →