Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)

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

El 1 de diciembre de 2025, W.D. Michigan (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

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Court found the quoted language attributed to Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. does not appear in the cited opinion.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court determined Stefanski v. City of Center Line (504 Mich. 877 (2019)) does not exist at that citation and the reference appears fabricated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Kaufman & Payton citation was used to assert a specific legal proposition the Court found the case does not support.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court noted Chandler was cited for a point the opinion does not discuss; the citation was misapplied.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. United States v. Garber was cited as if addressing professional responsibility, but the opinion is a tax-evasion appeal and does not support the asserted proposition.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Court found the quoted language attributed to Shallal v. Catholic Social Services is not present in that opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Wurtz was cited for propositions about knowledge and causation that the Court said Wurtz does not address.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Pettigrew citation does not correspond to a defamation case and the named decision does not appear to exist at that citation (fabricated/interstitial miscitation).
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Court found the quote attributed to U.S. ex rel. Marlar does not appear in that Sixth Circuit opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Riverview was cited for a specific maxim about pleading and amendment that the Court concluded Riverview does not contain.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court found the Olitkowski and Wolverine citations do not contain the equitable-restitution language the defendant quoted or were misapplied.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Wirsing citation appears to be fabricated or is an interstitial miscitation; the Court found no supporting authority at the cited source.

Desenlace

Monetary Sanction. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1128/Lothamer_Tax_Resolution_v._Kimmel_USA_1_December_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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