Shahid v. Esaam

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

El 30 de junio de 2025, Georgia CA (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que Lawyer; Judge se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Epps'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Trial court's order relied on a fictitious case labeled 'Hodge'; appellate court could not locate it and vacated the order.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent case; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent 'Miller v. Miller' with a mismatched parallel cite; court found the reporter cite corresponds to an unrelated criminal case.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent divorce case; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent case styled against the State; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent Ramos decision; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent McRae decision; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief cited a non-existent Johnson decision to support attorney fees on appeal; court could not find it.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Husband's Response cited a non-existent case; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Husband's Response cited a non-existent Christie decision; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Husband's Response cited a non-existent Mobley decision; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Husband's Response cited a non-existent Robinson decision; court listed it as fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Husband's Response cited a non-existent Reynolds decision (distinct from the real 2015 Supreme Court case); court listed it as fictitious.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief misrepresented Blasingame as supporting service by publication; court said the case had nothing to do with service by publication.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief misrepresented Wilson as governing deference to trial court factual findings; court noted Wilson says nothing about that standard of review.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief misrepresented Brown v. Tomlinson as establishing deference in absence of a transcript; court said the case says nothing about that.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellee's Brief misrepresented Jones v. State as requiring affirmance without a transcript; court noted the case had a transcript and said nothing related to that proposition.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Appellee's Brief asserted OCGA § 9-15-14 authorizes attorney's fees on appeal; court explained longstanding law holds appellate fees are not recoverable under this statute.

Desenlace

Case remanded; monetary penalty. Sanción económica: 2500 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/530/Shahid_v._Esaam_Georgia_30_June_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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