Delano Crossing v. County of Wright

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

El 29 de mayo de 2025, Minnesotta Tax Court (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. County's summary judgment brief contained five AI-generated case citations that do not correspond to any actual judicial decisions; the court found them fake and inherently misleading under Rule 11.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. At the hearing, County offered substitute real cases to support its propositions, but the court found those authorities did not support the brief’s arguments.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Brief asserted that failure to comply with deadlines or court orders can justify granting summary judgment; the court held this sweeping proposition is unsupported and misplaced.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. AI-generated brief relied on Minn. R. Civ. P. 41 (dismissal) while moving under Rule 56 for summary judgment; the court found no authority granting summary judgment for such procedural deficiencies.

Desenlace

Breach of Rule 11, but no monetary sanction warranted; referred counsel to Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/459/Delano_Crossing_2016_v._County_of_Wright_Minnesota_Tax_Court_29_May_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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