Published opinion, 31 October 2025 · source · PDF · 10 pages
Eldridge also claimed that her attorney did not receive proper notice and that she was prohibited from presenting evidence. In this brief in opposition, Eldridge acknowledged that her writ petition contained citation errors and hallucinated cases because she “relied on assistance that proved inad equate” and requested leave to amend her petition with correct legal authority.1 The judge filed a reply brief on September 15, 2025. For the following reasons, this court grants the respondent’s motion to dismiss.
On April 10, 2023, Soretha commenced a forcible entry and detaine r action against her father, Eldridge v. Eldridge, 1 A “hallucinated case” is a made -up, fictitious case generated by “artificial intelligence, AI.” Cleveland M.C. No.