Chryshawna A. and Jeremy Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor
Tax Court Indiana · Jul 16, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- Tax Court Indiana
- Record ID
- chryshawna-a-and-jeremy-webb-v-sullivan-county-assessor-2026-07-16
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the motion to supplement the record and issued a formal admonishment to the pro se litigants regarding their duty to verify legal authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying Petitioners' Motion to Supplement the Certified Record.
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
The court stated it believed the petitioners used generative AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.