In re Marriage of Isom and Kareem
CA Illinois · Jun 16, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Illinois
- Record ID
- in-re-marriage-of-isom-and-kareem-2025-06-16
- Observed outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment denying the motion to modify child support.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to modify child support. It found the appellant's brief deficient due to the use of incorrect or non-existent case citations, which the court suggested were likely generated by AI, and the failure to provide a sufficient record for appellate review.
The court reasoned that the appellant failed to provide a complete record of the trial proceedings, requiring a presumption that the trial court's order was correct. Furthermore, the court found the appellant's reliance on non-existent or miscited case law violated procedural rules, and that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as counsel.
This case illustrates the risks of using generative AI for legal research without verification. It highlights how courts identify AI-generated hallucinations and enforce strict procedural compliance for pro se litigants, resulting in the summary rejection of arguments lacking valid authority.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois, to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.
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 noted the brief read as though generated by ChatGPT.
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.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- 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.