Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Agravo de Instrumento Nº 0104033-49.2025.8.16.0000 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 →

Agravo de Instrumento Nº 0104033-49.2025.8.16.0000

Court
TJPR, 13ª CC
Jurisdiction
Brazil
Decided
2026-04-08
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Court found the use of nonexistent or mischaracterized jurisprudence constituted litigância de má-fé; imposed a fine of 1% of the updated value of the cause and ordered communication to OAB/PR for possible disciplinary follow-up.
Monetary penalty
1

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'STJ, AgInt no AREsp 1368223/SP, Rel. Min. Benedito Gonçalves, DJe 28/03/2019' — court found the referenced decision was mischaracterized (actually a 2016 matter on criminal procedure) and not pertinent to the argued issue. || Fabricated: Case Law | Alleged 'TJPR, AI 0033665-93.2022.8.16.0000, Rel. Des. Guilherme Frederico Hernandes Denz, J. 24/08/2023' was asserted by counsel but court's search showed this Agravo de Instrumento was invented and does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Citation 'STJ, RESP1984567 / PR, Rel. Min. LUIS FELIPE SALOMÃO, julgado de 5.4.22' was indicated by counsel but court concluded the referenced precedent was inexistent or improperly alleged.

Details

The court determined that the exequente (through counsel) submitted jurisprudence that was nonexistent or mischaracterized — apparently produced by AI — to support its positions. The panel held this behavior amounted to litigância de má-fé (art. 80 II CPC), reduced the pecuniary sanction to 1% of the updated value of the cause (R$1,589,690.46 → R$15,896.90), and ordered communication to OAB/PR. The tribunal emphasized that counsel must verify AI outputs and that citing fabricated or altered precedents can induce the court to error and exceed excusable research mistakes.

Sanction teardown · TJPR, 13ª CC, Brazil · 2026-04-08

Agravo de Instrumento Nº 0104033-49.2025.8.16.0000

What happened

In TJPR, 13ª CC, 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:

  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Cited 'STJ, AgInt no AREsp 1368223/SP, Rel. Min. Benedito Gonçalves, DJe 28/03/2019' — court found the referenced decision was mischaracterized (actually a 2016 matter on criminal procedure) and not pertinent to the argued issue.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Alleged 'TJPR, AI 0033665-93.2022.8.16.0000, Rel. Des. Guilherme Frederico Hernandes Denz, J. 24/08/2023' was asserted by counsel but court's search showed this Agravo de Instrumento was invented and does not exist.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Citation 'STJ, RESP1984567 / PR, Rel. Min. LUIS FELIPE SALOMÃO, julgado de 5.4.22' was indicated by counsel but court concluded the referenced precedent was inexistent or improperly alleged.

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

Court found the use of nonexistent or mischaracterized jurisprudence constituted litigância de má-fé; imposed a fine of 1% of the updated value of the cause and ordered communication to OAB/PR for possible disciplinary follow-up. (monetary penalty: 1 .)

Additional detail

The court determined that the exequente (through counsel) submitted jurisprudence that was nonexistent or mischaracterized — apparently produced by AI — to support its positions. The panel held this behavior amounted to litigância de má-fé (art. 80 II CPC), reduced the pecuniary sanction to 1% of the updated value of the cause (R$1,589,690.46 → R$15,896.90), and ordered communication to OAB/PR. The tribunal emphasized that counsel must verify AI outputs and that citing fabricated or altered precedents can induce the court to error and exceed excusable research mistakes.

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/2884/0104033-49.2025.8.16.0000.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2884/0104033-49.2025.8.16.0000.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