City of Columbus v. Edwards-Bosh v. Tri-County Toyota does not exist — a fabricated AI citation

This citation is unusual even by the standards of AI-fabricated case law: it names three parties across what reads as two merged captions — “City of Columbus v. Edwards-Bosh v. Tri-County Toyota” — attached to a real-looking Tenth District Ohio docket number and a real-looking 2008-Ohio slip-opinion identifier. In Morgan v. Jones, the appellate court found that no such case exists under that docket number, and that the underlying web citation the appellant supplied actually resolves to a completely unrelated opinion.

This is a distinctive failure mode worth naming on its own: rather than inventing a clean two-party case name, whatever produced this citation appears to have blended two or three real or real-sounding case names into a single, garbled caption, then attached a citation format specific enough (district, county, docket number, year-and-sequence Ohio slip-opinion code) to look authoritative to anyone not actually pulling the file.

The same appellant's brief also misattributed a due-process quotation to a real Ohio Supreme Court case, State ex rel. Ohio Turnpike Comm'n v. Indus. Comm. — the court found that quote did not appear in the actual opinion either, which the correct citation traces to a 2009 Tenth District ruling instead. Two different failure modes, one brief: an outright invented case, and a real case with fabricated contents. Family-law appeals like this one, often filed by parties with limited access to counsel, appear more than once in this database's Ohio and Alabama entries — a pattern suggesting AI-citation risk is at least as acute in under-resourced practice areas as it is in large commercial litigation.