Valurie Kaye Mettler v. Michigan State Police et al.
CA Indiana · Jul 15, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Indiana
- Record ID
- valurie-kaye-mettler-v-michigan-state-police-et-al-2026-07-15
- Observed outcome
- The court issued an admonishment to the pro se litigant regarding the use of AI and the requirement to verify citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Indiana Court of Appeals admonished a pro se litigant for including fictitious caselaw in appellate briefing, which the court attributed to the likely use of generative AI. The court cautioned all litigants to independently verify citations generated by AI tools.
The court reasoned that the inclusion of fictitious caselaw in the appellant's briefing likely resulted from AI-generated hallucinations, necessitating an admonishment to ensure the integrity of future filings and the importance of independent verification.
This case serves as a judicial warning regarding the risks of AI-assisted legal research. It highlights that courts are actively monitoring filings for AI-generated hallucinations and will formally admonish parties who fail to verify the accuracy of their cited authorities.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court's dismissal of tort claims.
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 errors to generative AI.
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.