Martin v. Hawai'i

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

El 20 de septiembre de 2024, D. Hawaii (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner cited Crenshaw v. City of Defuniak Springs, 891 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2018); the Court stated this citation is not accurate and appears fictitious.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Petitioner quoted Morford for an equal-protection rule about unavailability of an impartial judge; the Court said the quotation appears fictitious and the citation is not accurate.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Petitioner quoted Holley for a liberal-construction rule on removal deadlines; the Court said the quotation appears fictitious and the citation is not accurate.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner cited Huffman v. Bright, 636 F. Supp. 133 (D. Colo. 1986); the Court stated this citation is not accurate and appears fictitious.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Petitioner asserted that removal statutes should be construed generously to protect federal rights; the Court held the Ninth Circuit requires strict construction and resolves doubts against removal.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Petitioner claimed an evidentiary hearing was required before remand; the Court explained § 1455(4)-(5) permits summary remand when facially deficient.

Desenlace

Warning, and Order to file further submissions with Declaration. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/353/Martin_v._Hawai_D._Hawai_USA_August_20_2024.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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