Which source supports this Donovan v. Clark 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.

HomeCasesDonovan v. Clark County Assessor

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Donovan v. Clark County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 22, 2025

IN / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes administrative Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Indiana Tax Court issued a formal warning to pro se litigants for submitting AI-generated fabricated case law and false quotations in their briefs. The court admonished the petitioners for failing to independently verify the authenticity of their cited authorities but declined to impose additional monetary or professional sanctions.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se litigants cited a non-existent case 'Rawles v. Monroe Cnty. Ass'r, 48T10-1705-TA-00014, slip op. at 5–6 (Ind. Tax Ct. May 13, 2019)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was an AI hallucination (petitioner admitted using AI). || False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief quoted language attributed to Piotrowski, O'Donnell, and Westfield Golf that the court found not present in those opinions; court treated these as inaccurate/misgenerated quotations likely produced by AI.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Indiana Tax Court, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appeal before the Indiana Tax Court, pro se litigants Linda and William Donovan challenged a property tax assessment. During the proceedings, the petitioners submitted briefs containing a non-existent case citation ('Rawles v. Monroe Cnty. Ass'r') and fabricated quotations attributed to three other Indiana Tax Court opinions. The court identified these as AI-generated hallucinations after the petitioners admitted to using artificial intelligence to assist in drafting their filings. While the court admonished the litigants for failing to verify the authenticity of their cited authorities, it imposed no further penalties beyond the warning. The court affirmed the underlying administrative board's determination regarding the property's tax value, noting that the petitioners failed to accurately apply Indiana law or demonstrate that the evidence compelled a different result.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Indiana Tax Court, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore INOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtIndiana Tax Court

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateDec 22, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court affirmed the administrative board's decision and issued a formal warning to the petitioners regarding their use of AI-generated citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The petitioners admitted to using AI, but the specific tool was not named.

Procedural posture

Judicial review of an Indiana Board of Tax Review final determination regarding a property tax assessment.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se litigants cited a non-existent case 'Rawles v. Monroe Cnty. Ass'r, 48T10-1705-TA-00014, slip op. at 5–6 (Ind. Tax Ct. May 13, 2019)'; court could not locate the case and concluded it was an AI hallucination (petitioner admitted using AI).
False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief quoted language attributed to Piotrowski, O'Donnell, and Westfield Golf that the court found not present in those opinions; court treated these as inaccurate/misgenerated quotations likely produced by AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Donovan v. Clark County Assessor?: The Indiana Tax Court issued a formal warning to pro se litigants for submitting AI-generated fabricated case law and false quotations in their briefs. The court admonished the petitioners for failing to independently verify the authenticity of their cited authorities but declined to impose additional monetary or professional sanctions.
Why does Donovan v. Clark County Assessor matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Indiana Tax Court, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Donovan v. Clark County Assessor?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Donovan v. Clark 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.

Tippecanoe County Assessor v. Craig GoergenIndiana Tax Court · Oct 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations CCDP v. Canada AG & Frantz Saint-JeanFederal Court (Canada) · Jul 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Lafayette v. WintersVermont SC · Jan 7, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Farooq v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police ForceSupreme Court (NSW) · Dec 9, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension BoardAC Illinois · Nov 24, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified Damilola Obembe v. Droisys, Inc.OCAHO · Jul 29, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open Indiana Tax Court profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology