HomeCasesDonovan v. Clark County Assessor

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Donovan v. Clark County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 22, 2025

IN / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesadministrative

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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). Outcome: Warning.

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

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

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtIndiana Tax Court

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateDec 22, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

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?: 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). Outcome: Warning.
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 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 William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey SmithS.D. Indiana · May 26, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

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

Tracked discrepancy record

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

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?

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?

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.