Shana Jordan, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority et al.
CC Illinois · Estados Unidos, 5 de diciembre de 2025 · Fabricación. Ficha verificada del Equipo Editorial.
Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.
El 5 de diciembre de 2025, CC Illinois (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.
Qué se alucinó
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. CHA relied on a non-existent case as controlling authority for admitting alternative-source evidence; plaintiffs identified it as fabricated and CHA conceded it was produced by an attorney using AI.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Another non-existent case cited in CHA filings identified by plaintiffs and attributed by the firm to AI-assisted drafting.
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. CHA misstated the holding of Barry v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., portraying it as affirming remittitur when the Illinois Supreme Court did not vacate the award.
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. CHA represented Hollis v. R. Latoria Construction as supporting remittitur where the Supreme Court actually affirmed and remanded for a new trial based on inadequacy of damages.
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. CHA mischaracterized Johnson v. Mers as involving a trial court reduction of pain-and-suffering awards; the case actually affirmed summary judgment for the employer and did not involve that trial scenario.
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. CHA quoted Sears v. Rutishauser for a principle about speculative damages requiring reduction, but the court held a different point regarding cross-examination of a treating physician; the quotation/point was misapplied.
- Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. CHA included a quoted passage attributed to Thompson v. Gordon that the opinion does not contain; the court found the quote absent and the proposition unsupported by that case.
Desenlace
Motion partly struck; Monetary sanctions. Sanción económica: 59500 USD. Sanción profesional: No.
Ficha del caso
| Caso | Shana Jordan, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority et al. |
| Jurisdicción | CC Illinois |
| País | Estados Unidos |
| Fecha | 5 de diciembre de 2025 |
| Quién usó IA | Lawyer |
| Herramienta | ChatGPT |
| Área del derecho | tort |
Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1159/Jordan_v._CHA_USA_5_December_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.
¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.