Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Carlos E. Gutierrez 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 →

Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. Gutierrez

Court
CA Florida (3d)
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2024-12-04
AI tool
Unidentified
Outcome
Appeals dismissed as sanction; Appellant barred from future pro se filings in related probate matters without attorney signature
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's 'Augmented Appendix Sections' cited numerous Florida cases that do not exist ('phantom case law'); appellee Enrique Gutierrez filed a notice listing these non-existent authorities. || False Quotes: Case Law | For the few correctly cited cases, the quotations attributed to them are not in the opinions, per the court's review.

Details

AI UseThe court did not specify how the hallucinated material was generated but described the bulk of appellant’s cited cases as “phantom case law.”Hallucination DetailsThe court identified that the “Augmented Appendix Sections” attached to each brief consisted of numerous nonexistent Florida cases. Some real cases were cited, but quotes attributed to them were fabricated.Ruling/SanctionDismissal of both consolidated appeals as a sanction. Bar on further pro se filings in the underlying probate actions without review and signature of a Florida-barred attorney. Clerk directed to reject noncompliant future filingsKey Judicial ReasoningThe Court held that Gutierrez’s submission of fictitious legal authorities and failure to respond to the show cause order constituted an abuse of process. It emphasized that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules as attorneys and referenced prior sanctions cases involving AI hallucinations.

Sanction teardown · CA Florida (3d), USA · 2024-12-04

Carlos E. Gutierrez v. In Re Noemi D. Gutierrez

What happened

In CA Florida (3d), USA, 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 (Case Law)
    Appellant's 'Augmented Appendix Sections' cited numerous Florida cases that do not exist ('phantom case law'); appellee Enrique Gutierrez filed a notice listing these non-existent authorities.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    For the few correctly cited cases, the quotations attributed to them are not in the opinions, per the court's review.

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

Appeals dismissed as sanction; Appellant barred from future pro se filings in related probate matters without attorney signature

Additional detail

AI UseThe court did not specify how the hallucinated material was generated but described the bulk of appellant’s cited cases as “phantom case law.”Hallucination DetailsThe court identified that the “Augmented Appendix Sections” attached to each brief consisted of numerous nonexistent Florida cases. Some real cases were cited, but quotes attributed to them were fabricated.Ruling/SanctionDismissal of both consolidated appeals as a sanction. Bar on further pro se filings in the underlying probate actions without review and signature of a Florida-barred attorney. Clerk directed to reject noncompliant future filingsKey Judicial ReasoningThe Court held that Gutierrez’s submission of fictitious legal authorities and failure to respond to the show cause order constituted an abuse of process. It emphasized that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules as attorneys and referenced prior sanctions cases involving AI hallucinations.

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/304/Carlos_E._Gutierrez_v._in_Re_Noemi_D._Gutierrez_US_CA_Florida_December_4_2024.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/304/Carlos_E._Gutierrez_v._in_Re_Noemi_D._Gutierrez_US_CA_Florida_December_4_2024.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