Which source supports this State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane 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.

HomeCasesState ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane

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

State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane

CA Ohio · Oct 31, 2025

OH / state Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations civil rights appellate None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court dismissed the relator's writs of mandamus and prohibition after she admitted to including hallucinated cases in her petition. The court denied her request for leave to amend the petition and ordered her to pay costs.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law
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 a mandamus and prohibition action, pro se relator Soretha Marie Eldridge sought to dismiss an underlying civil case, alleging judicial bias and jurisdictional priority issues. During the proceedings, the relator admitted that her petition contained citation errors and hallucinated cases, attributing these errors to inadequate assistance. The court noted that the relator failed to address the respondent's arguments for dismissal and instead requested leave to amend her petition with correct legal authority. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, denied the request to amend, finding the relator failed to meet the necessary legal standards for the requested writs. Consequently, the court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the writ action and ordered the relator to pay costs.

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

DateOct 31, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court dismissed the writs of mandamus and prohibition and ordered the relator to pay costs.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The court identified the source of the errors as artificial intelligence but did not name a specific tool.

Procedural posture

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the relator's petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition.

Correction behavior

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane?: The court dismissed the relator's writs of mandamus and prohibition after she admitted to including hallucinated cases in her petition. The court denied her request for leave to amend the petition and ordered her to pay costs.
Why does State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane 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 State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane?: 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 State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane 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 citations South Central Ohio Job and Family Services v. Corey MasonCA Ohio · Nov 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Souders v. LazorCA Ohio · Oct 8, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations State v. DavisCA Ohio · Aug 3, 2026same court · pro se + appellate State v. ColemanCA Ohio · Mar 20, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Smith v. GambleCA Ohio · Jul 7, 2025same court · pro se + appellate

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA Ohio profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology