AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSouth Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason

CA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025

OH / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityotherNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court found that the pro se appellant's motion to vacate a civil protection order relied on multiple inaccurate or non-matching case citations. Specifically, the appellant misattributed '2016-Ohio-2987' to 'Nolan v. Nolan' instead of 'State v. Hari,' leading the court to reject the associated legal arguments.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited '2016-Ohio-2987' as Nolan v. Nolan; the court found that citation is misattributed and does not support the asserted legal proposition (2016-Ohio-2987 corresponds to State v. Hari). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion contained multiple inaccurate or non-matching case citations (court observed only 2 of 10 citations actually refer to the cases cited).
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appellate review of a motion to vacate a civil stalking protection order, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion. The appellant, appearing pro se, submitted a motion containing multiple inaccurate or non-matching case citations, with the court noting that only two of ten citations correctly referred to the cited cases. Specifically, the appellant misattributed the citation '2016-Ohio-2987' to 'Nolan v. Nolan,' whereas the actual case is 'State v. Hari,' which does not support the appellant's legal argument regarding waiver. The appellate court overruled the assignments of error, citing the appellant's failure to raise arguments in the trial court and the reliance on non-existent or misattributed legal authority.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

OhioSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OHOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Ohio
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit6th Circuit
DateNov 25, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe appellate court overruled the appellant's assignments of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment denying the motion to vacate.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The record implies AI usage through the nature of the citation errors.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a civil stalking protection order.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited '2016-Ohio-2987' as Nolan v. Nolan; the court found that citation is misattributed and does not support the asserted legal proposition (2016-Ohio-2987 corresponds to State v. Hari).
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Motion contained multiple inaccurate or non-matching case citations (court observed only 2 of 10 citations actually refer to the cases cited).

Questions this record answers

What happened in South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason?
The court found that the pro se appellant's motion to vacate a civil protection order relied on multiple inaccurate or non-matching case citations. Specifically, the appellant misattributed '2016-Ohio-2987' to 'Nolan v. Nolan' instead of 'State v. Hari,' leading the court to reject the associated legal arguments.
Why does South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Ohio, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason?
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 South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason 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.

In re T.F., P.F., and S.S. Minor ChildrenCA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSouders v. LazorCA Ohio · Oct 8, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsState v. DavisCA Ohio · Aug 3, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authorityState ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley KilbaneCA Ohio · Oct 31, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsSmith v. GambleCA Ohio · Jul 7, 2025same court · pro se + appellateCity of Shaker Heights v. Andre D. ThompsonCA Ohio (8d) · May 21, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations