California Judge "Cited and Relied on a Fictitious Case" Submitted by Lawyer, Even Though …
A California judge relied on a fictitious case in a ruling regarding a protective order for a minor. The trial court's decision was based on legal misstatements that were pointed out by opposing counsel. The Court of Appeal has reversed the ruling for further proceedings due to these errors.
- ▪The trial court cited a nonexistent case in its ruling.
- ▪Opposing counsel had previously highlighted the errors to the trial court.
- ▪The ruling misinterpreted Family Code section 6203 regarding definitions of abuse.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
AI in Court California Judge "Cited and Relied on a Fictitious Case" Submitted by Lawyer, Even Though … opposing counsel had "directly and swiftly pointed the errors out to the trial court." Eugene Volokh | 5.29.2026 10:26 AM From H.C. v. Contreras, decided yesterday by California Court of Appeal Justice Mark Snauffer, joined by Justices Bert Levy and Donald Franson: Bethany G. sought a protective order protecting H. C., her minor son, from H. C.'s father, Rudy C. Numerous witnesses testified at a hotly contested hearing after which the parties filed closing briefs. Rudy's brief, submitted by counsel, contained fictitious caselaw and misstated the law. Counsel for Bethany directly and swiftly pointed the errors out to the trial court.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason Magazine.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason Magazine
