Casos de alucinación

Kessler v. City of Atwater

E.D. California · Estados Unidos, 11 de julio de 2025 · Fabricación. Ficha verificada del Equipo Editorial.

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

El 11 de julio de 2025, E.D. California (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. Cited non-existent case: Gonzalez v. County of Los Angeles; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited non-existent case: McGill v. City of Redding; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited non-existent case: Ramos v. County of Madera; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited non-existent case: Yaka v. City of San Jose; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited non-existent case: Simmons v. City of Sacramento; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited non-existent case: Kohn v. Kohn; court found no such case exists and appears created out of whole cloth.
  • Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quotation attributed to Espindola; court found the quoted language does not appear and the phrase "place of business" is absent.
  • Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quotation attributed to Harrell; court found the quote does not appear and the word "arbiters" is not used in the opinion.
  • Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quotation attributed to City of Montebello v. Vasquez; court found the quoted language does not exist and the term "tortious" is not used.
  • Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quotation attributed to Navellier; court noted the language does not appear and the case in fact holds the opposite regarding anti-SLAPP.
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Caldwell as supporting liability for intentional torts like defamation/fraud; court noted Caldwell does not address those torts and instead concerns FEHA immunity.
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Turner as eliminating Government Claims Act filing for defamation/fraud; court explained Turner involved premises liability from a shooting and did not address that proposition.
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Cameron as stating government employees are not immune from intentional torts; court said Cameron is limited to design immunity/duty to warn and noted the brief’s citation was incorrect (correct: 7 Cal.3d 318).
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Cornell to claim no § 820.2 immunity when acting with malice, fraud, or oppression; court noted Cornell at cited pages discusses Bane Act and elsewhere false arrest immunity, not that proposition.
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Thayer as holding fraudulent conduct is never protected under anti-SLAPP; court said Thayer did not reach or speak to that issue.
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim to claim defamation is not insulated by anti-SLAPP; court said it merely observed many SLAPPs involve defamation and did not issue that holding.
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Kashian to assert fraud and breach of contract are inherently unlawful and not protected speech; court said Kashian did not so hold and page 905 defines SLAPP rather than excluding contract claims.
  • Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented Hagberg to argue alleged obstructive and defamatory conduct falls outside protected petitioning/speech; court said Hagberg addressed Civil Code § 47(b) privilege for reports to police, not the asserted proposition.

Desenlace

Order to show cause issued for potential sanctions. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

CasoKessler v. City of Atwater
JurisdicciónE.D. California
PaísEstados Unidos
Fecha11 de julio de 2025
Quién usó IALawyer
HerramientaUnidentified
Área del derechocivil rights

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/591/Kessler_v._Atwater_USA_11_July_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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

Equipo Editorial

Investigación y redacción del equipo de Ablucinaciones. Casos verificados, citados y al servicio de abogados y estudiantes.