Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0JF5A66Generated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey Mason

CA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Ohio
Record ID
south-central-ohio-job-and-family-services-v-corey-mason-2025-11-25
Observed outcome
The appellate court overruled the appellant's assignments of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment denying the motion to vacate.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Hallucinated_case_law
  • Misrepresented_authority
  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Other
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a civil stalking protection order.
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

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

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.
  2. Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.