Gregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, Washington

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

El 17 de marzo de 2026, CA Washington (d3) (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. Appellants cited State v. Johnson, 194 Wn.2d 704, 451 P.3d 1082 (2019), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Richmonds cited Osborn v. Mason County for a proposition about mandatory plumbing inspections, but the case concerns a duty to warn and does not contain the stated plumbing/inspection holding; court held the citation does not support the proposition.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Richmonds quoted language attributed to Bailey v. Town of Forks that does not appear in that opinion; court noted the quoted language is not in Bailey.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Richmonds attributed a municipal-immunity-related quotation to Phillips v. King County that the court found does not appear in that case.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellants cited King County v. Vincent (167 Wn.2d 671 (2009)), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellants cited Carlyle v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 155 Wn. App. 895, 231 P.3d 218 (2010), which the court could not locate and treated as a likely fabricated citation.

Desenlace

Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1690/Richmond_USA_17_March_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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