M.H. v. C.S.
CA Indiana · Nov 24, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Indiana Court of Appeals identified that the pro se appellant cited a non-existent case in her appellate brief. The court admonished the appellant for failing to comply with appellate rules requiring support by valid legal authority, though it proceeded to decide the case on its merits.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited a case that the court determined does not exist; the court noted non-existent and irrelevant case law cannot support her contentions.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal from a protective order denial, the pro se appellant, M.H., submitted a brief containing non-existent case law. The Court of Appeals of Indiana noted that the appellant failed to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8), which requires arguments to be supported by citations to actual legal authorities. The court observed that the appellant's brief was devoid of applicable standards of review and relied on a case that does not exist. While the court ultimately addressed the merits of the appeal, it highlighted the appellant's failure to adhere to procedural rules. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the appellant's arguments regarding service, judicial bias, and evidentiary weight to be either waived or unsupported by the record.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Appellate review of a trial court's denial of protective order petitions and grant of a protective order against the appellant.
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 | Appellant's brief cited a case that the court determined does not exist; the court noted non-existent and irrelevant case law cannot support her contentions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in M.H. v. C.S.?
- The Indiana Court of Appeals identified that the pro se appellant cited a non-existent case in her appellate brief. The court admonished the appellant for failing to comply with appellate rules requiring support by valid legal authority, though it proceeded to decide the case on its merits.
- Why does M.H. v. C.S. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about M.H. v. C.S.?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this M.H. v. C.S. 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.