Rasmussen v. Rasmussen

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

El 23 de agosto de 2024, California (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Ferreira v. Ferreira for joinder/equitable distribution; court found it is a child custody/forum non conveniens case and does not support the proposition.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Erlich v. Superior Court as requiring good-faith negotiation before suit; court held Erlich concerns injunctions of collection actions and says nothing about such a requirement.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Albertson v. Raboff for the proposition that abuse of legal process indicates bad faith; court stated Albertson addresses lis pendens privilege and does not mention 'abuse' or 'bad faith.'
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Dino v. Pelliccioni (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 163 to oppose partition by sale; court found no such case exists and the citation corresponds to Kramer v. State Board of Accountancy, unrelated to partition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Harmon v. Harmon (2001) 24 Cal.4th 259 regarding trustee duties; court found no such case exists and the page falls within People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Estate of Green (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 495 regarding trustee duties; court found no such case exists and the citation maps to Staggs v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 492.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Kerrigan v. O’Meara (1926) 71 Cal.App. 346 to attack pleading sufficiency; court found no such California case exists and the pinpoint corresponds to People v. Albrexstondare (1925) 71 Cal.App. 339; a Montana case with that caption is irrelevant.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Defendant cited Dieden v. Schmidt (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 645 to argue against partition by sale; court noted the case concerns judgment creditor rights and does not mention partition.

Desenlace

Lawyer ordered to show cause why she should not be referred to the bar. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/439/Rasmussen_v._Rasmussen_CA_USA_August_23_2024.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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