Sammie Dwayne McPhaul v. College Hills OPCO

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 enero de 2026, D. Kansas (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

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff quoted a passage attributed to Cory v. Troth that does not appear in that opinion; court identified the quotation as inaccurate.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a quotation to Mason v. Gerin Corp. that is not found in the opinion; court flagged it as inaccurate.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff quoted Fanning v. Sitton Motor Lines as containing language about showing 'some cognitive awareness' that the opinion does not contain; court noted the misquotation.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a phrase about 'even the movement of the toes or legs of the decedent' to Cochrane v. Schneider Nat’l that does not exist in that opinion; court flagged it.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff quoted Lemmons v. Board of County Comm’rs for a relation-back principle quotation that is absent from that decision; court identified the inaccuracy.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited Pape v. Kansas Power & Light Co. with an incorrect citation number; court noted the citation was not correct.

Desenlace

Order to Show Cause. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1269/McPhaul_v._College_Hills_USA_6_December_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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