Tippecanoe County Assessor v. Craig Goergen
Indiana Tax Court · Oct 17, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- Indiana Tax Court
- Record ID
- tippecanoe-county-assessor-v-craig-goergen-2025-10-17
- Observed outcome
- The Court issued a formal admonishment to the petitioner regarding the fictitious citation and ordered the petitioner to retain licensed counsel by November 17, 2025, or face potential dismissal.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Indiana Tax Court issued a formal admonishment to a pro se litigant for citing a fictitious case likely generated by AI. The Court ruled that the litigant, a non-attorney, could not represent his office and ordered him to retain counsel, while warning that failure to verify AI-generated research undermines judicial integrity.
The Court reasoned that the petitioner's citation of a non-existent case wasted judicial resources and hindered the administration of justice. It noted that judges must rely on the authenticity of cited authorities to make just decisions and that litigants have an affirmative duty to verify the accuracy of all sources.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI for legal research without verification. It reinforces the judicial expectation that all parties, regardless of representation status, are responsible for the authenticity of their cited authorities.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The Indiana Tax Court issued an order on October 17, 2025, addressing the petitioner's unauthorized pro se representation and the inclusion of a fictitious case citation in his brief.
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 attributed the fictitious citation to a likely AI hallucination.
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.
- 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.