Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor
Tax Court Indiana · Jul 16, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Indiana Tax Court admonished pro se litigants for citing irrelevant legal rules in a motion to supplement the record, concluding the mischaracterizations likely resulted from the use of generative AI. The court denied the motion on statutory grounds and cautioned the petitioners to independently verify the accuracy of all future filings.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the cited rules (Ind. Trial Rule 53.2 and Ind. Tax Court Rule 14) do not address the criteria for considering evidence outside the administrative record, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to independently verify the accuracy of their legal citations.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of pro se filings involving AI-generated content. It reinforces the expectation that all litigants, regardless of representation status, must independently verify the accuracy and applicability of legal authorities cited in court documents.
Why this matter is tracked
In a tax appeal, pro se petitioners Chryshawna and Jeremy Webb filed a motion to supplement the administrative record with a transcript from a prior small claims proceeding. The Indiana Tax Court denied the motion, finding the petitioners failed to meet the statutory requirements for introducing new evidence under Indiana Code Section 33-26-6-5. In its order, the court noted that the petitioners cited Indiana Trial Rule 53.2 and Indiana Tax Court Rule 14 to support their request, but these rules were irrelevant to the issue. The court concluded the petitioners likely used generative AI to produce the motion, as the citations were mischaracterized. The court issued an admonishment regarding the duty to verify legal authorities and cautioned the petitioners against relying on AI without independent verification.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of pro se filings involving AI-generated content. It reinforces the expectation that all litigants, regardless of representation status, must independently verify the accuracy and applicability of legal authorities cited in court documents.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court stated it believed the petitioners used generative AI.
Order denying Petitioners' Motion to Supplement the Certified Record.
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.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The Webbs cited Ind. Trial Rule 53.2 and Ind. Tax Court Rule 14 but used them to support propositions those rules do not stand for; the court concluded the citations were mischaracterized, likely by generative AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor?
- The Indiana Tax Court admonished pro se litigants for citing irrelevant legal rules in a motion to supplement the record, concluding the mischaracterizations likely resulted from the use of generative AI. The court denied the motion on statutory grounds and cautioned the petitioners to independently verify the accuracy of all future filings.
- Why does Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of pro se filings involving AI-generated content. It reinforces the expectation that all litigants, regardless of representation status, must independently verify the accuracy and applicability of legal authorities cited in court documents.
- What does the public record establish about Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor 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.