Arron v. Custer, et al.
S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. Ohio
- Record ID
- arron-v-custer-et-al-2026-05-21
- Observed outcome
- The Court treated the plaintiff's citation of 'Arron v. Arron' as unverified, noting it could not locate the case.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court identified that the pro se plaintiff cited a non-existent 2023 Ohio Supreme Court opinion, 'Arron v. Arron.' The Court explicitly stated it could not locate or confirm the existence of this case, treating the citation as unverified within its Opinion and Order.
The Court noted the citation was unverified because it could not locate or confirm the existence of the purported 2023 Ohio Supreme Court opinion 'Arron v. Arron' cited by the plaintiff.
This case illustrates the risk of pro se litigants using AI-generated hallucinations in federal filings. It highlights the necessity for courts to verify the existence of cited authorities, even when the underlying jurisdictional issues are the primary focus of the litigation.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The District Court conducted a de novo review of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation following the plaintiff's objection, ultimately sustaining in part and overruling in part the recommendation.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.