Which source supports this I.H. v. O.K. 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.

HomeCasesI.H. v. O.K.

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 81/100. 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

I.H. v. O.K.

CA Indiana · Nov 3, 2025

IN / state Editorial impact: low pro se misrepresented authority other appellate Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a warning to a pro se litigant after observing that his appellate brief contained multiple citations to authorities that did not support the propositions for which they were cited, a practice the court attributed to the use of artificial intelligence.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained multiple authorities that did not support the propositions for which they were cited; the court attributed this to AI use and warned of risks.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate a protective order, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, noting the appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of error. The court observed that the appellant's pro se brief contained numerous citations to legal authorities that did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court explicitly attributed these errors to the appellant's use of artificial intelligence in drafting the filing. The court issued a formal warning to the appellant, advising him to exercise caution when using AI tools in future filings to avoid potential consequences, including dismissal, filing restrictions, or monetary sanctions.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Indiana

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit7th Circuit

DateNov 3, 2025

AI toolartificial intelligence (AI)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court affirmed the trial court's decision and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI in drafting court filings.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court attributed the errors to the use of artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a protective order.

Correction behavior

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: Case Law | Appellant's brief contained multiple authorities that did not support the propositions for which they were cited; the court attributed this to AI use and warned of risks.

Questions this record answers

What happened in I.H. v. O.K.?: The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a warning to a pro se litigant after observing that his appellate brief contained multiple citations to authorities that did not support the propositions for which they were cited, a practice the court attributed to the use of artificial intelligence.
Why does I.H. v. O.K. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about I.H. v. O.K.?: 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 I.H. v. O.K. 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.

Jean-Paul B. Kalonji v. State of IndianaCA Indiana · May 26, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority A.K. v. M.R.CA Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Mutugu v. KiarahoCA Indiana · Feb 6, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Wilcox v. GingrichCA Indiana · Jan 30, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority M.H. v. C.S.CA Indiana · Nov 24, 2025same court · pro se + other T.M. v. M.M.CA Indiana · Sep 24, 2025same court · pro se + misrepresented authority

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 CA Indiana 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