Cingel v. Ferreri

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 19 de septiembre de 2025, CA Indiana (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'In re Marriage of Dunston, 989 N.E.2d 830, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)' to support abuse-of-discretion review; court found no such case and reporter citation pointed to unrelated decisions.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'McCain v. State, 924 N.E.2d 56, 60 (Ind. 2009)' for a custody proposition; court determined that citation does not exist as given.
• Fabricación de norma legal. Appellant relied on 'Indiana Code § 31-17-2.5-1' as the custody statute; court found no such statutory section (correct statute is 31-17-2-8).
• Fabricación de norma legal. Appellant cited and purported to quote 'Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-23(a)'; court noted no such statutory provision exists.
• Fabricación de norma legal. Appellant cited 'Trial Rule 60.1' and 'Trial Rule 60.1(A)' to support procedural requirements for custody modifications; court found no such trial rule.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Appellant cited 'Trial Rule 59(G)' as requiring written orders or hearings on motions to correct error; court explained Rule 59(G) concerns cross errors and was misapplied.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'Bowman v. Bowman, 682 N.E.2d 23, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)' for multiple propositions; court observed the correct Bowman citation is different (686 N.E.2d 921) and the cited reporter/pincite pointed to unrelated authority, and the asserted propositions were inaccurate.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Appellant relied on subsections 'Indiana Code § 31-17-2.2-1(a)' and '(b)' for notice timing and burden of proof on relocation; court found those subsections were mischaracterized (they address filing location and exceptions) and pointed to the correct provisions (31-17-2.2-3 and 31-17-2.2-5).

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/820/Cingel_v_Ferreri.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.