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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C.
CA Ohio (6d) · May 26, 2026
OH / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Davis v. Davis, 590 N.E.2d 1372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)" for the proposition that challenges to foreign-judgment jurisdiction must be made in the rendering court; trial court and opposing counsel could not locate the case at that citation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Deepseek with Monetary Sanction in CA Ohio (6d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Davis v. Davis, 590 N.E.2d 1372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)" for the proposition that challenges to foreign-judgment jurisdiction must be made in the rendering court; trial court and opposing counsel could not locate the case at that citation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Deepseek with Monetary Sanction in CA Ohio (6d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
OhioSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Ohio (6d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit6th Circuit
DateMay 26, 2026
DE
AI toolDeepseek
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
Known amount$100
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Deepseek is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Davis v. Davis, 590 N.E.2d 1372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)" for the proposition that challenges to foreign-judgment jurisdiction must be made in the rendering court; trial court and opposing counsel could not locate the case at that citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Kaplan v. Tuennerman, 87 Ohio App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 717 (8th Dist.1993)" but the citation did not correspond to an authority supporting his quoted proposition and could not be located as cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Black v. Black, 175 Ohio App.3d 113, 2008-Ohio-1525 (8th Dist.)" and provided quotations that the actual authority (if any) did not contain; court found the citation unreliable and not supporting appellant's claim.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Brunswick Hills Twp. v. Bank of New York, 2007-Ohio-1480 (12th Dist.)" but the case and quoted material did not match the proposition advanced; court treated the citation as a hallucinated authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Moran v. Moran, 2012-Ohio-1841, ¶ 13 (10th Dist. Ct. App.)" in support of his jurisdictional argument; the court was unable to locate the case at that citation and found it to be among the AI-generated mis-citations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited "Davis v. Davis, 590 N.E.2d 1372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)" for the proposition that challenges to foreign-judgment jurisdiction must be made in the rendering court; trial court and opposing counsel could not locate the case at that citation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- Why does Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Deepseek with Monetary Sanction in CA Ohio (6d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C.?
- 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 Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C. 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.