Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Ordinanza n. 11431 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 →

Ordinanza n. 11431

Court
Cassazione
Jurisdiction
Italy
Decided
2026-02-27
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Monetary Fine
Monetary penalty
3000 EUR

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Sez. VI, n. 41738/2018 and attributed a principle it does not contain; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. II and lacks the claimed principle. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Sez. VI, n. 44901/2019 but misidentified the issuing section and attributed a principle the decision does not state; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. VII and does not contain the claimed principle. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Sez. VI, n. 36091/2017 with an attributed principle the decision does not contain; Court notes the decision was actually pronounced by Sez. IV and lacks the claimed principle. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Sez. IV, n. 19756/2019 and attributed a principle it does not contain; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. V and does not support the petition's claim. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Sez. II, n. 14792/2021 but misattributed the issuing section and principle; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. VII and does not contain the attributed principle. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant attributed a principle to Sez. U, Mannino, n. 33748/2005 that the decision does not assert; Court notes the decision exists but not as the petition claims.

Sanction teardown · Cassazione, Italy · 2026-02-27

Ordinanza n. 11431

What happened

In Cassazione, Italy, 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:

  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Appellant cited Sez. VI, n. 41738/2018 and attributed a principle it does not contain; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. II and lacks the claimed principle.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Appellant cited Sez. VI, n. 44901/2019 but misidentified the issuing section and attributed a principle the decision does not state; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. VII and does not contain the claimed principle.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Appellant cited Sez. VI, n. 36091/2017 with an attributed principle the decision does not contain; Court notes the decision was actually pronounced by Sez. IV and lacks the claimed principle.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Appellant cited Sez. IV, n. 19756/2019 and attributed a principle it does not contain; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. V and does not support the petition's claim.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Appellant cited Sez. II, n. 14792/2021 but misattributed the issuing section and principle; Court notes it was actually pronounced by Sez. VII and does not contain the attributed principle.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Appellant attributed a principle to Sez. U, Mannino, n. 33748/2005 that the decision does not assert; Court notes the decision exists but not as the petition claims.

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

Monetary Fine (monetary penalty: 3000 EUR.)

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/2622/2026-03-26_Cass_pen_11431.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2622/2026-03-26_Cass_pen_11431.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