Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0E8JQLHGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

I.H. v. O.K.

CA Indiana · Nov 3, 2025

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Indiana
Record ID
ih-v-ok-2025-11-03
Observed outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's decision and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI in drafting court filings.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Other
  • Appellate
  • Warning
AI attribution
Explicitly Recorded
Recorded tool
artificial intelligence (AI)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Appellate review of a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a protective order.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.