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.

Whaley v. Experian Information Solutions