Isaiah Hunter-Bey v. City of Cleveland Law Department
CA Ohio (8d) · May 21, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Ohio (8d)
- Record ID
- isaiah-hunter-bey-v-city-of-cleveland-law-department-2026-05-21
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the mandamus petition.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's mandamus petition. It explicitly identified that the appellant relied on a case that did not support his argument and cited an unidentifiable case ('McQueen'), noting that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as other litigants regarding compliance with appellate rules.
The court reasoned that the appellant's reliance on State ex rel. Henry v. Britt was misguided because the case did not support the stated proposition, and that the citation to 'McQueen' was insufficient to identify the authority relied upon. The court further held that pro se litigants must adhere to appellate rules requiring proper citations.
This case illustrates how appellate courts address the submission of unverified or nonexistent legal authorities by pro se litigants. It reinforces that courts hold all litigants to the same standards for citation accuracy and procedural compliance, regardless of their pro se status.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas judgment granting a motion to dismiss a mandamus petition.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- 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.