Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-15RP0EYGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

M.H. v. C.S.

CA Indiana · Nov 24, 2025

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Indiana
Record ID
mh-v-cs-2025-11-24
Observed outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the appellant's claims of procedural error and bias.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Other
  • Appellate
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Appellate review of a trial court's denial of protective order petitions and grant of a protective order against the appellant.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.