ApodictaShow me on my files

Pennsylvania · state trial court · 2026

Kaspryak, Z. v. Stadarskyy, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 19 August 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · Pa. Super. Ct.

  1. Court. Superior Court of PennsylvaniaCOURT
  2. Level. state trial courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 19 August 2026DATED
  4. Docket. No. 2781 EDA 2025DOCKET
  5. Judge. NicholsJUDGE
  6. Reporter. 2026 Pa. Super. 185CITE
  7. Documents. one document, 3 passages quoted belowON FILE
  8. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.

Published opinion, 19 August 2026 · source · PDF · 9 pages

These citations are so nonsensical and disconnected from Appellant’s claims that we conclude that they are hallucinated citations.4 To the extent that Appellant has employed generative artificial intelligence (“generative AI” or “GAI”) tools to draft her brief, as indicated by her repeated misrepresentations of the meaning of valid statutes and precedential opinions as well as her reliance on hallucinated authority, we note that the use of GAI to draft legal filings (including by pro se litigants), without verification of the accuracy of the content so produced, may lead to misstatements and/or misrepresentations of legal authority. . .

Eastaff.” In fact, “Lowrey v. Eastaff” appears to be an entirely fabricated caption, coupled with a hallucinated citation. J-A14036-26 - 9 - After our review of Appellant’s filings on appeal, we find that Appellant has not referenced any relevant authority to support her arguments.

J-A14036-26 - 9 - After our review of Appellant’s filings on appeal, we find that Appellant has not referenced any relevant authority to support her arguments. Further, Appellant has misrepresented and/or misstated authority and fabricated authority. Accordingly, Appellant has also waived her claims by failing to cite to pertinent authority in her appellate brief.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from Superior Court of Pennsylvania, from Pennsylvania, or from 2026. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on one of my filesTry the gate
Show me on my files