Martin v. Taylor County

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

El 6 de marzo de 2024, N.D. Texas (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. Plaintiff cited a non-existent passage from a Supreme Court case asserting 'Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation'; the Court noted the passage does not exist and warned such citations may warrant Rule 11 sanctions.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff claimed the OAG Child Support Division is a private business separate from the government; the Court held it is a state entity entitled to sovereign immunity.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff alleged the state court lacked lawful judicial authority and acted as clerks for an executive agency; the Court rejected this and affirmed the court’s authority and immunity.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff argued 28 U.S.C. § 1691 applies to state courts; the Court held the statute applies only to courts of the United States.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff characterized wage garnishment for child support as 'executive imprisonment'; the Court held Texas law authorizes garnishment for child support.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff claimed paying child support is slavery or involuntary servitude; the Court cited authority rejecting this contention.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff asserted a Seventh Amendment jury-trial right in state child support proceedings; the Court held the Seventh Amendment does not govern state courts.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff claimed standing to sue under 18 U.S.C. § 241; the Court held the criminal statute provides no private right of action.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff argued Rooker-Feldman did not apply because the child support hearing was not run by a 'real judge'; the Court held Rooker-Feldman applies and is regularly used in child-support contexts.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Plaintiff contended the 326th District Court is contractually bound and subject to suit by citizens; the Court held the court is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/372/Martin_v._Taylor_County_N.D._Texas_USA_March_6_2024.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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