Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Autos nº. 0002069-76.2026.8.16.0194 (Manoel Tomaz Budal Filho on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Autos nº. 0002069-76.2026.8.16.0194 (Manoel Tomaz Budal Filho v. Antonio Carlos Alves Lopes)

Court
TJPR
Jurisdiction
Brazil
Decided
2026-05-25
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Tribunal declarou a existência de litigância de má-fé em razão das citações fabricadas, fixou multa de 10% do valor da causa e determinou ofício à OAB; Recurso Especial não admitido.
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited a non-existent wording of art. 9 of Law 10.188/2001 (altered statutory text). Court found the quoted text does not exist in the law. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed the phrase “A posse tolerada não configura esbulho e não autoriza indenização” to REsp nº 1.679.915-PA; court found the REsp is monocratic, criminal, from Pará, and does not contain that phrase.

Details

The appellate court found that the appellant's filings contained a citation to a non-existent statutory text (alteration of article 9 of Law 10.188/2001) and the invention/mischaracterization of a Superior Tribunal de Justiça precedent (REsp 1.679.915). The court treated these as evidence of litigância de má-fé, imposed a fine of 10% of the value of the cause and ordered communication to the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. The decision emphasizing that the fabricated statutory text and false precedent justified the bad-faith finding and that further review on the merits was barred by Súmula 7/STJ.

Sanction teardown · TJPR, Brazil · 2026-05-25

Autos nº. 0002069-76.2026.8.16.0194 (Manoel Tomaz Budal Filho v. Antonio Carlos Alves Lopes)

What happened

In TJPR, Brazil, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Legal Norm)
    Appellant cited a non-existent wording of art. 9 of Law 10.188/2001 (altered statutory text). Court found the quoted text does not exist in the law.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Appellant attributed the phrase “A posse tolerada não configura esbulho e não autoriza indenização” to REsp nº 1.679.915-PA; court found the REsp is monocratic, criminal, from Pará, and does not contain that phrase.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Tribunal declarou a existência de litigância de má-fé em razão das citações fabricadas, fixou multa de 10% do valor da causa e determinou ofício à OAB; Recurso Especial não admitido.

Additional detail

The appellate court found that the appellant's filings contained a citation to a non-existent statutory text (alteration of article 9 of Law 10.188/2001) and the invention/mischaracterization of a Superior Tribunal de Justiça precedent (REsp 1.679.915). The court treated these as evidence of litigância de má-fé, imposed a fine of 10% of the value of the cause and ordered communication to the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. The decision emphasizing that the fabricated statutory text and false precedent justified the bad-faith finding and that further review on the merits was barred by Súmula 7/STJ.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2887/0002069-76.2026.8.16.0194.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2887/0002069-76.2026.8.16.0194.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template