STATE EVIDENCE REPORT

Ohio

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records38

Source linked100%

Known USD amount total$22,337

Recorded rangeNov 16, 2023 – Oct 23, 2026

EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What patterns appear in the public records associated with Ohio?

AI Vortex currently links 38 source-linked public matters associated with Ohio. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (33), Misrepresented authority (17) and Fabricated or altered quotations (9). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (15), Warning or admonishment (15) and Monetary sanction (6). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the state.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.

OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Fabricated authorities33 · 86.8%Misrepresented authority17 · 44.7%Fabricated or altered quotations9 · 23.7%

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.

RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

No adjudicated consequence recorded15 · 39.5%Warning or admonishment15 · 39.5%Monetary sanction6 · 15.8%Bar or professional referral2 · 5.3%Dismissal or adverse disposition1 · 2.6%Disqualification1 · 2.6%

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

Pro Se Litigant27 · 71.1%Lawyer11 · 28.9%

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

Contract12 · 31.6%Civil Rights6 · 15.8%Employment4 · 10.5%Criminal3 · 7.9%Family3 · 7.9%

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 38

Oct 23, 2026Boyd v. Beachwood City School District Board of EducationN.D. OhioUnidentifiedSource

Aug 6, 2026Burgess v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit AuthorityN.D. OhioAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Aug 3, 2026State v. DavisCA OhioUnidentifiedSource

Jul 29, 2026Terence A. Gragston v. Amazon LLCS.D. OhioAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 16, 2026Ammann v. Markel Insurance CompanyN.D. OhioAI (implied, unspecified)Source

Jul 8, 2026Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Group Ltd, et al.N.D. OhioUnidentifiedSource

Jun 26, 2026Morgan v. JonesOhioAI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 26, 2026Guo v. Meade Motorcars, L.L.C.CA Ohio (6d)DeepseekSource

May 26, 2026In re M.A.L.B.CA Ohio (4d)No tool named in sourceSource

May 21, 2026Arron v. Custer, et al.S.D. OhioNo tool named in sourceSource

May 21, 2026City of Shaker Heights v. Andre D. ThompsonCA Ohio (8d)AI (implied, unspecified)Source

May 21, 2026Isaiah Hunter-Bey v. City of Cleveland Law DepartmentCA Ohio (8d)AI (implied, unspecified)Source

Open all matching records

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.

CONNECTED INTELLIGENCE

Related corpus profiles

United States38 shared records Fake Citations33 shared records Misrepresented Authority17 shared records None Adjudicated15 shared records Warning15 shared records S.D. Ohio12 shared records

Cite this page

Bluebook: AI Vortex, Ohio (state) Evidence Report, Legal AI Risk Tracker (updated Oct. 26, 2026), https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/oh/report (last visited Oct. 26, 2026).
APA: AI Vortex. (2026, October 26). Ohio (state) Evidence Report. Legal AI Risk Tracker. Retrieved October 26, 2026, from https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/oh/report
URL: https://www.aivortex.io/legal-ai-risk/states/oh/report (accessed 2026-10-26)

Cites the AI Vortex page, not the underlying decision; cite the court's own document for the holding.