Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger et al

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

El 2 de junio de 2025, E.D. Virginia (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited T.A. v. McKinney Independent School District, 861 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1988), but that reporter cite corresponds to Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1988), unrelated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Used an improbable case name with no citation; court found it entirely fabricated and nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Provided only a name and year; targeted search found no such case; court deemed it nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Provided only a name and year without citation; court could not identify any such decision and treated it as nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Asserted a case tied to opposing counsel with no citation; targeted search found none; court found it nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Referenced a non-case caption without a proper case name or citation; court treated it as fabricated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Fourth Circuit decision that does not exist; closest match is a Sixth Circuit criminal case and a much later district court case with no relevance.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an unfindable Second Circuit case; closest match is Lin Zhong v. DOJ, 489 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2007); court found the cited case nonexistent.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misstated circuit and case; the provided cite corresponds to a First Circuit civil case, not a Third Circuit decision as cited.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Provided a Second Circuit citation that does not exist; closest is an unrelated Fifth Circuit case; court deemed it nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Provided a Second Circuit citation that does not exist; closest match is a criminal case; court deemed it nonexistent and irrelevant.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Ninth Circuit decision at a page number that does not exist; closest is a Tenth Circuit environmental case; court deemed it nonexistent for the proposition cited.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an unfindable Seventh Circuit decision; closest is a Sixth Circuit immigration case; court found no apparent relevance and treated it as nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Ninth Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is an Eleventh Circuit criminal case; court deemed the citation nonexistent and irrelevant.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Third Circuit case that does not exist; closest is a Fifth Circuit commercial case; court deemed it nonexistent and irrelevant to the issues.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Second Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is a Second Circuit criminal case; court treated the cited case as nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Ninth Circuit criminal case with a non-existent page; closest case is a civil FDIC case; court treated the cited authority as nonexistent for the proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Fourth Circuit case that does not exist; closest match is a Sixth Circuit case later withdrawn, with no relation; court treated it as nonexistent for the cited purpose.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Fifth Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is a Seventh Circuit case; court deemed the citation nonexistent.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a First Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is a Federal Circuit case; court treated it as nonexistent and irrelevant to the matter.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Ninth Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is a Seventh Circuit case; court deemed it nonexistent and irrelevant to IDEA issues.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Seventh Circuit decision at a non-existent page; closest is a Federal Circuit case; court found it nonexistent and irrelevant.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an Eighth Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is a Second Circuit case; court found the citation nonexistent and unrelated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Second Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is a Fourth Circuit case on a different topic; court treated it as nonexistent for the issue presented.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Southern District of New York case at a non-existent page; closest is a District of Massachusetts ERISA case; court deemed it nonexistent and irrelevant.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Second Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is an unrelated Second Circuit broadcasting case; court found it nonexistent for the proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an Eastern District of Virginia decision that does not exist; closest match is a D.D.C. case; court found no EDVA case by that name and deemed it fabricated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Attributed a Ninth Circuit decision to the Fourth Circuit; citation actually matches Ninth Circuit; no Fourth Circuit case by that name exists.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an E.D. Va. decision that does not exist; closest is an E.D.N.Y. employment case; targeted search found no such E.D. Va. case.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Maryland A.2d case that does not exist; closest is a Maine Supreme Judicial Court case; court found it fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Fourth Circuit decision that does not exist; closest is a First Circuit case; only similarly named case is an Indiana state case with no relevance.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Fourth Circuit decision that does not exist; the provided reporter corresponds to a Second Circuit case; only similar Fourth Circuit case is an unpublished 2000 decision.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a D. Ariz. decision that does not exist; closest is a D.N.M. case; court found the cited case fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Third Circuit decision at a non-existent page; closest is a Third Circuit criminal case; court deemed it fabricated and irrelevant.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Second Circuit decision at a non-existent page; closest is a Fifth Circuit criminal case; court treated it as fabricated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Fourth Circuit case at a reporter page that corresponds to a Ninth Circuit criminal case; no similar Fourth Circuit case found.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Seventh Circuit case at a non-existent page; closest is another Seventh Circuit education case with different page; court treated it as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Southern District of New York decision with a Westlaw citation that does not exist; court found no similar citation.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an E.D.N.Y. decision with a Westlaw citation that actually corresponds to an Advisory Council meeting report, not a case.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an M.D. Tenn. decision at a non-existent page; closest is an unrelated E.D. Wis. case; court treated it as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an S.D.N.Y. decision with a non-existent Westlaw citation; court could find no similar Westlaw cite.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an E.D. Ky. decision at a non-existent page; closest is an N.D. Ill. case; court treated it as fabricated and irrelevant.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Fourth Circuit case at a reporter page that does not exist; closest match is Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), on unrelated issues; court found no Beeman case in the Fourth Circuit.

Desenlace

Relevant motions stricken. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/473/Powhatan_County_School_Board_v._Skinger_et_al_E.D._Virginia_USA_2_June_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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