HomeCasesCalvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, et al.

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.

Corpus matter record

Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, et al.

S.D. Ohio · Sep 11, 2025

OH / federalEditorial impact: lowpro semisrepresented authoritycivil rightstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether cited material supported the proposition attributed to it. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority 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

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority 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

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. Ohio

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateSep 11, 2025

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

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

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.

Questions this record answers

What happened in 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. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority 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 Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, 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 Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, 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.

Arron v. Custer, et al.S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + civil rights Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services et al.S.D. Ohio · May 15, 2026same court · pro se + civil rights Hector Salvatori v. The Huntington National BankS.D. Ohio · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie MingoS.D. Ohio · Oct 7, 2025same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Lahti v. Consensys Software Inc.S.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 2025same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Quandel Construction Group, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2026same court · misrepresented authority + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

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.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, et al.?

Why does Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, et al.?

Which source supports this Calvin Bradley v. Matthew Eichhorn, 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.