Dennis Thornton v. Flathead County, et al.

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

El 23 de enero de 2026, D. Montana (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. Defendants identified 'Younger v. City of Seattle, 70 F.4th 1099, 1107 (9th Cir. 2023)' as a nonexistent Ninth Circuit citation; 70 F.4th 1099 corresponds to an unrelated Eighth Circuit case and no Ninth Circuit case with that title appears to exist.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Thornton cited 'United States v. Craner, 652 F. App'x 560, 562 (9th Cir. 2016)'; the Court noted this citation appears incorrect/nonexistent as cited and may reflect a miscitation (perhaps meant 652 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1981)), which does not support Thornton's asserted proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Thornton cited 'United States v. Smith, 629 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011)'; the Court identified this citation as nonexistent in the form cited and treated it as a fabricated authority in Thornton's briefing.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Thornton quoted language attributed to Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2008); the Court found the quoted language is not in that opinion and the opinion was not authored by the judge Thornton referenced (misquoted/misattributed).

Desenlace

Order to file conventional hard-copy source documents for every cited authority. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1377/Thornton_v._Flathead_County_USA_23_January_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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