Nydia Rosario v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

‘all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from’ those allegations ... and, construing the allegations and reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the [plaintiff]’..., we determine whether they ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’ ” Oakwood Lab'ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 904 (3d Cir. 2021) (internal citations omitted). 15 ECF 15-1 at 5–8. 16 Trial counsel and judges increasingly work under a risk of miscitations or unsupported arguments patched from artificial intelligence favored by many lawyers. We have no reason to today find the abuse of artificial intelligence research. We instead see old-fashioned lack of diligence. Counsel is professionally obligated (compounded by risk to their and their law firm's reputations) to be diligent in ensuring the accuracy of citations and quotations in briefing submitted to us and our colleagues. Experienced federal lawyers know our talented lawyers in Chambers study their work product to advise the judges. And these Chambers's lawyers are unfairly burdened in a busy urban federal court docket. We rely on counsel to present accurate citations.

Authorities cited in the passage: 56 F. App · instead of the correct · x 133 · 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93673, at *2-3 · Id. at *2-3 · Counsel quoted Kiessling v. State Farm · Santiago v. Warminster Twp · F. App'x 133' instead of the correct '506 F. App'x 133' for Smith v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co · Incorrect pincite and mixed database locators for Jones v. Allstate · Oakwood Lab'ys LLC v. Thanoo