Which source supports this Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 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.

HomeCasesBurgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

N.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2026

OH / federal Editorial impact: low fake citations employment trial Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's Opposition cited 'State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland' at 70 Ohio St.3d 40 (incorrect/misleading citation); the Court found this citation hallucinatory and noted the actual Shimola decision is at 70 Ohio St.3d 100, 637 N.E.2d 325. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The structured public record identifies fake citations and employment and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and employment with Warning in N.D. Ohio. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and employment with Warning in N.D. Ohio. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

OhioSingle-state evidence scope

Explore OHOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtN.D. Ohio

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateAug 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

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 | Defendant's Opposition cited 'State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland' at 70 Ohio St.3d 40 (incorrect/misleading citation); the Court found this citation hallucinatory and noted the actual Shimola decision is at 70 Ohio St.3d 100, 637 N.E.2d 325.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority?: Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant's Opposition cited 'State ex rel. Shimola v. City of Cleveland' at 70 Ohio St.3d 40 (incorrect/misleading citation); the Court found this citation hallucinatory and noted the actual Shimola decision is at 70 Ohio St.3d 100, 637 N.E.2d 325. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and employment with Warning in N.D. Ohio. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority?: 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 Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 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.

Michael Izquierdo v. Wipro LimitedN.D. Ohio · Nov 21, 2025same court · fake citations + employment Ammann v. Markel Insurance CompanyN.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group Ltd, et al.N.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Hong Chris Lu v. Capital One, N.A., et al.N.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Vision Management Group v. Constant AviationN.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2025same court · fake citations + trial Nixon v. Ken Ganley Ford WestN.D. Ohio · Sep 3, 2025same court · fake citations + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Aug 19, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 19, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 18, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open N.D. Ohio profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology