Ohio

Quandel Construction Group, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

Fabricated: Case Law | Hunt cited a nonexistent Aerpio case and incorrect citation (wrong case name/number and Westlaw cite); court identified the correct case as Aerpio Pharms., Inc. v. Quaggin, 2019 WL 4717477 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2019). || False Quotes: Case Law | Hunt included three direct quotations attributed to the (mis)cited Aerpio decision that do not appear in the actual Aerpio v. Quaggin opinion; court found only the phrase "inextricably intertwined" actually appears in the real case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Hunt cited the wrong Vaughn case name and provided an unrelated case number; court found the error was wrong in form though the quoted substance was unchanged.

Hong Chris Lu v. Capital One, N.A., et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief (Doc. 39) contained numerous fabricated cases and troubling citation inconsistencies; opposing counsel identified the fake citations (Doc. 41); plaintiff later apologized and withdrew or corrected the filings (Doc. 47). || Fabricated: Case Law | Subsequent filing (Doc. 43) again included fake cases; court noted repeated use of fabricated citations and citation inconsistencies in the docket.

Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2002) as supporting civil-extortion elements; the Court noted Pendergraft addresses criminal extortion under the Hobbs Act, not civil extortion under Ohio law (misapplied authority). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'State v. Carter, 72 Ohio App. 3d 553 (2d Dist. 1991)' as authority for an element of civil extortion; the court's review found no such opinion supporting that proposition (case appears non-existent/mislinked). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel relied on 'In re Protech, 51 F.4th 714 (6th Cir. 2022)' in briefing; the Court's independent review found no Sixth Circuit opinion matching that citation (phantom citation). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Dart Indus. Co. v. Hurd, 66 Ohio St. 2d 280 (1981)' for protection of settlement demand letters; the Court determined that citation was fabricated/misleading and not applicable as asserted. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995) as addressing extortion-related settlement privilege; the Court found Kenty does not support that proposition (misstated holding). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Office Depot, Inc. v. Impact Office Prods., LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2011) for a particular pleading/particularity rule for DTSA/OUTSA; Court found the cited passages do not state the proposition relied upon (mischaracterized authority). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 2015-Ohio-760' as supporting that settlement demand letters are non-actionable; Court found the cited authority was actually a different federal case (309 F. Supp. 2d 1019) and irrelevant to proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel quoted or paraphrased United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999) as saying that informing authorities of misconduct cannot be an unlawful threat; the Cou

Hector Salvatori v. The Huntington National Bank

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Pineda v. Chase Bank (07-CV-563-PJH, 2007 WL 521222) does not exist in the N.D. Cal.; the Westlaw cite actually links to a different case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Herring v. Dist. of Columbia (780 F. Supp. 2d 105) does not exist as cited and the reporter citation corresponds to a different case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Gray v. Beverly Enterprises-Mississippi, Inc. exists but does not discuss Section 1981 or statutes of limitations as plaintiff claimed (misrepresented authority).

South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited '2016-Ohio-2987' as Nolan v. Nolan; the court found that citation is misattributed and does not support the asserted legal proposition (2016-Ohio-2987 corresponds to State v. Hari). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion contained multiple inaccurate or non-matching case citations (court observed only 2 of 10 citations actually refer to the cases cited).

In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor Children

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Sain v. Roo, 2018-Ohio-2878, ¶ 19," which the court found to be fictitious (no case assigned to that citation). || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio App.3d 213 (1987)," but the court found this citation to be incorrect/fictitious (36 Ohio App.3d 213 is State v. Arvanitis). || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on "In re M.M., 2015-Ohio-2571" and another similar citation, which the court identified as fictitious/misassigned and not supporting appellant's propositions. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation to Braatz v. Braatz, 85 Ohio St.3d 40 (1999), but the court found the quoted language does not appear in Braatz. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re K.W., 2016-Ohio-5272, ¶ 16," which the court determined was mis-cited / assigned to a different case and did not support his claim. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re J.J., 2017-Ohio-5467, ¶ 29," but the court noted no case is assigned to that citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant referenced "State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-1234," but the court observed that citation is assigned to a different case (In re Z.L.) and does not support appellant's asserted proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited "In re G.C., 2020-Ohio-4092" for legal propositions, but the court found that citation is assigned to an unrelated case (Oregon v. Gaughan) and does not support his claims. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation/supportive language to In re Guardianship of Hollins, 114 Ohio St.3d 434 (2007), but the court found no such quotation in Hollins. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on In re Bonfield, 2002-Ohio-6660, but the court found the case did not support the specific standing arguments appellant advanced.

Michael Izquierdo v. Wipro Limited

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Whelan v. Colgan Air, Inc., 2010 WL 3610460 (E.D.N.Y.)' to argue COBRA inadequacy; the Court found the case does not exist and labeled the citation likely hallucinated.

State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane

Fabricated: Case Law

Safe Choice, LLC v. City of Cleveland

Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney attributed the phrase 'fresh injury' to Kuhnle; court found the Sixth Circuit never used that phrase and deemed the citation misrepresented. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate this opinion; counsel conceded she could not find or certify its existence. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate this opinion; counsel conceded she could not find or certify its existence. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney claimed Jackson supports a 'custom of tolerance' Monell theory; court found Jackson addressed official policy and failure-to-train theories, not the theory advanced. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney represented Burgess as finding failure to respond could amount to ratification; court noted Burgess held after-the-fact approval insufficient to establish Monell claim. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney cited Huffman for a proposition about conspiracy; court observed the word 'conspiracy' does not appear in Huffman and the proposition was inaccurate. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney claimed Doe v. Claiborne County supports that punitive damages cannot be dismissed at pleading stage; court found 'punitive' does not appear in the opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Attorney cited Conley and Doe v. Columbia Univ. for a broad proposition about damages demands at pleading stage; court found those authorities did not support the asserted proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate this opinion; counsel conceded she could not find or certify its existence. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate this opinion; counsel conceded she could not find or certify its existence.

Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Marsh v. Chambers for the proposition that federal district courts may issue mandamus to compel state court officers; the court held this characterization was "patently false." || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on several state-law citations that the court found to be incorrect or non-existent. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff asserted authority from "28 U.S.C. § 1362" and "28 U.S.C. § 136(2)" as support for mandamus; the court noted those provisions do not provide such authority and construed the request under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

Vision Management Group v. Constant Aviation

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel miscited Cook and referenced a non-existent page; the court identified the incorrect citation and corrected the record (noting the correct Cook citation). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited an unlocatable Sixth Circuit opinion 'Onyx Enters. Int'l Corp. v. Sloan' (843 F. App'x 859, 867 (6th Cir. 2021)); the court was unable to find the opinion and disregarded the citation.

Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, et al.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "State v. Gonzales, 2016-Ohio-8319, 6th Dist."; the court found 2016-Ohio-8319 leads to a case titled State v. Gonzalez at the Ohio Supreme Court (not Sixth Dist.) and is unrelated to the issue asserted. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "State v. Parker, 2018-Ohio-4210, 2d Dist." for the proposition that K-9 alerts cannot establish probable cause post-legalization; the court found the citation actually corresponds to State v. Coleman (Eighth Dist.) and is unrelated to drug-sniffing dogs.

Nixon v. Ken Ganley Ford West

Fabricated: Case Law | Court concluded at least two of Plaintiff's motions contained citations to nonexistent cases created by generative AI; Defendants reported inability to locate the cited authorities. || Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple unspecified case citations in Plaintiff's filings could not be found and were determined by the Court to be AI-generated fabrications.

Lahti v. Consensys Software Inc.

Fabricated: Case Law || Misrepresented: Case Law | At least 2 || Fabricated: Case Law || Fabricated: Case Law

Muhammad v. Gap Inc.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited as controlling authority a non-existent S.D. Ohio case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff asserted the Court relied on a case that does not appear to exist; the Court actually cited In re McDonald. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted the phrase “uncompensable by money” from the case, but the phrase does not appear and the case concerns Sherman Act, not civil rights. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff provided a purported quote from the case that does not appear in that decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff’s filing quoted six cases, but none contained the cited language. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited as controlling authority a case the court could not find exists. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation to the case, but the quoted language does not appear there.

State of Ohio Administrative Policy on AI

Establishes statewide governance for AI use by Ohio state agencies, including AI solution development, procurement, security, and privacy requirements. Mandates AI Council oversight, training for workforce use, vendor compliance, and ongoing monitoring for data quality and bias.

Whaley v. Experian Information Solutions