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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services et al.
S.D. Ohio · May 15, 2026
OH / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.3d 336, claiming it held that §1983 claims against child welfare workers for fabricating evidence are not barred by Rooker-Feldman; the Court found the citation incorrect (904 F.3d 336 corresponds to Gilkers v. Vannoy, a Fifth Circuit case) and that Jansen is 904 F.2d 336 (1990) and does not address child welfare or that holding. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning 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 Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.3d 336, claiming it held that §1983 claims against child welfare workers for fabricating evidence are not barred by Rooker-Feldman; the Court found the citation incorrect (904 F.3d 336 corresponds to Gilkers v. Vannoy, a Fifth Circuit case) and that Jansen is 904 F.2d 336 (1990) and does not address child welfare or that holding. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning 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 15, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
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 Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.3d 336, claiming it held that §1983 claims against child welfare workers for fabricating evidence are not barred by Rooker-Feldman; the Court found the citation incorrect (904 F.3d 336 corresponds to Gilkers v. Vannoy, a Fifth Circuit case) and that Jansen is 904 F.2d 336 (1990) and does not address child welfare or that holding.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.3d 336, claiming it held that §1983 claims against child welfare workers for fabricating evidence are not barred by Rooker-Feldman; the Court found the citation incorrect (904 F.3d 336 corresponds to Gilkers v. Vannoy, a Fifth Circuit case) and that Jansen is 904 F.2d 336 (1990) and does not address child welfare or that holding. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in S.D. Ohio, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services 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 Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services 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.