Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C.

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

El 26 de mayo de 2026, CA Ohio (6d) (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Deepseek y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "Davis v. Davis, 590 N.E.2d 1372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)" for the proposition that challenges to foreign-judgment jurisdiction must be made in the rendering court; trial court and opposing counsel could not locate the case at that citation.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "Kaplan v. Tuennerman, 87 Ohio App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 717 (8th Dist.1993)" but the citation did not correspond to an authority supporting his quoted proposition and could not be located as cited.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "Black v. Black, 175 Ohio App.3d 113, 2008-Ohio-1525 (8th Dist.)" and provided quotations that the actual authority (if any) did not contain; court found the citation unreliable and not supporting appellant's claim.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "Brunswick Hills Twp. v. Bank of New York, 2007-Ohio-1480 (12th Dist.)" but the case and quoted material did not match the proposition advanced; court treated the citation as a hallucinated authority.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited "Moran v. Moran, 2012-Ohio-1841, ¶ 13 (10th Dist. Ct. App.)" in support of his jurisdictional argument; the court was unable to locate the case at that citation and found it to be among the AI-generated mis-citations.

Desenlace

Monetary Sanction. Sanción económica: 100 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2237/Guo_v._Meade_Motorcars_USA_26_May_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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