Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was I OSK 590/26 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 →

I OSK 590/26

Court
NSA
Jurisdiction
Poland
Decided
2026-08-31
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Authorities disregarded
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | The appeal cited an NSA judgment said to have been issued on 7 March 2023, but the decision with that case number was actually issued on 20 December 2024 and concerned compensation for real property, not the issue in this case. || Fabricated: Case Law | The appeal cited an NSA case that was not registered under the stated docket number. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 18 January 2024, but the case was actually decided on 16 April 2026 and concerned restriction of the use of real property. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 12 April 2023, but the case was actually decided on 12 October 2023 and concerned excessive delay in administrative proceedings. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 16 May 2024, but the case was actually decided on 3 July 2025 and concerned refusal to commence proceedings concerning restitution of a property share. || Fabricated: Case Law | The appeal cited an NSA case that was not registered under the stated docket number. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 20 February 2024, but the case was actually decided on 28 May 2026 and concerned refusal of compensation for real property.

Sanction teardown · NSA, Poland · 2026-08-31

I OSK 590/26

What happened

In NSA, Poland, 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)
    The appeal cited an NSA judgment said to have been issued on 7 March 2023, but the decision with that case number was actually issued on 20 December 2024 and concerned compensation for real property, not the issue in this case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The appeal cited an NSA case that was not registered under the stated docket number.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 18 January 2024, but the case was actually decided on 16 April 2026 and concerned restriction of the use of real property.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 12 April 2023, but the case was actually decided on 12 October 2023 and concerned excessive delay in administrative proceedings.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 16 May 2024, but the case was actually decided on 3 July 2025 and concerned refusal to commence proceedings concerning restitution of a property share.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The appeal cited an NSA case that was not registered under the stated docket number.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    The appeal cited an NSA judgment as dated 20 February 2024, but the case was actually decided on 28 May 2026 and concerned refusal of compensation for real property.

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

Authorities disregarded

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/3226/I_OSK_590_26_-_Wyrok_NSA_z_2026-08-31.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3226/I_OSK_590_26_-_Wyrok_NSA_z_2026-08-31.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