Brankle v. Schmell
CA Indiana · Aug 14, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Indiana
- Record ID
- brankle-v-schmell-2026-08-14
- Observed outcome
- Monetary Sanction (upheld)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,546
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Cited rules that do not exist (inapplicable/nonexistent Commercial Court Rules); court described repeated citations to rules that do not exist. Outcome: Monetary Sanction (upheld). The trial court found that Brankle's filings contained repeated citations to rules that do not exist and fictitious cases, stating he appeared to be using ChatGPT to prepare filings. The trial court denied his motion to compel and ordered him to pay Schmell's expenses; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the motion was not substantially justified because it was riddled with hallucinated authorities and that as a pro se litigant he is held to the same standards as trained attorneys.
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Monetary Sanction (upheld). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Monetary Sanction (upheld) in CA Indiana. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Appellate
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- $1,546
- Procedural posture
- Monetary Sanction (upheld)
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.