Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake
CA Indiana · Jun 22, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Indiana
- Record ID
- hoagland-family-limited-partnership-v-town-of-clear-lake-2026-06-22
- Observed outcome
- The court admonished the party for the use of fictitious, AI-generated authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court of Appeals of Indiana identified that the appellant included a nonexistent case citation and a fabricated quotation in its brief, which the court concluded were likely generated by AI. The court admonished the party for failing to verify the authenticity of its legal research.
The court reasoned that the provided citation and quotation did not exist in the referenced reporter, concluding they were likely AI-generated. It emphasized that judges must rely on the authenticity of authorities to make just decisions and reminded the party of its duty under Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(1) to correct false statements of law.
This case illustrates the judicial response to the use of AI-generated fictitious citations in appellate briefs. It reinforces the mandatory duty of counsel to independently verify all legal authorities and the risk of judicial admonishment for failing to do so.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Other
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of multiple trial court orders, including contempt findings and attorneys' fees awards, in a long-standing dispute regarding sewer connection requirements.
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 the authority was likely created using generative artificial intelligence.
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
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- 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.