Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was In re Carlos Eduardo Rodríguez Paniagua 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 →

In re Carlos Eduardo Rodríguez Paniagua

Court
Consejo Superior Notarial
Jurisdiction
Costa Rica
Decided
2026-06-11
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Warning
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Court found quoted passages attributed to this Constitutional Chamber vote did not match the verifiable content and were used improperly as support. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found quoted passages attributed to this vote did not match verifiable content and were cited as supporting authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found quoted passages attributed to this vote did not correspond to the verifiable text of the decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court determined the quoted material ascribed to this vote was not verifiable in the cited decision and thus unreliable. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court observed that the quoted content attributed to this older vote did not match the decision's verifiable text and was irrelevant. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the resolution of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo was cited with quoted text that did not correspond to the verifiable resolution content. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the Procuraduría opinion was cited with purported quotations that did not match the verifiable dictamen content.

Sanction teardown · Consejo Superior Notarial, Costa Rica · 2026-06-11

In re Carlos Eduardo Rodríguez Paniagua

What happened

In Consejo Superior Notarial, Costa Rica, 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:

  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Court found quoted passages attributed to this Constitutional Chamber vote did not match the verifiable content and were used improperly as support.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Court found quoted passages attributed to this vote did not match verifiable content and were cited as supporting authority.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Court found quoted passages attributed to this vote did not correspond to the verifiable text of the decision.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Court determined the quoted material ascribed to this vote was not verifiable in the cited decision and thus unreliable.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Court observed that the quoted content attributed to this older vote did not match the decision's verifiable text and was irrelevant.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Court found the resolution of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo was cited with quoted text that did not correspond to the verifiable resolution content.
  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Court found the Procuraduría opinion was cited with purported quotations that did not match the verifiable dictamen content.

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

Warning

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/2461/Resoluci%C3%B3n_416177_Carlos_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Paniagua1.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2461/Resoluci%C3%B3n_416177_Carlos_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Paniagua1.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