Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Arron v. Custer, et al.
S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2026
OH / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported 2023 Ohio Supreme Court opinion 'Arron v. Arron'; the Court could not locate or confirm its existence and treated the citation as unverified. Outcome: Citation treated as unverified.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Citation treated as unverified; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Citation treated as unverified in S.D. Ohio, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported 2023 Ohio Supreme Court opinion 'Arron v. Arron'; the Court could not locate or confirm its existence and treated the citation as unverified. Outcome: Citation treated as unverified.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Citation treated as unverified in S.D. Ohio, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
OhioSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. Ohio
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateMay 21, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCitation treated as unverified
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Citation treated as unverified
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported 2023 Ohio Supreme Court opinion 'Arron v. Arron'; the Court could not locate or confirm its existence and treated the citation as unverified.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Arron v. Custer, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported 2023 Ohio Supreme Court opinion 'Arron v. Arron'; the Court could not locate or confirm its existence and treated the citation as unverified. Outcome: Citation treated as unverified.
- Why does Arron v. Custer, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Citation treated as unverified in S.D. Ohio, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Arron v. Custer, et al.?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Arron v. Custer, et al. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.