Wilcox v. Gingrich
CA Indiana · Jan 30, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Indiana
- Record ID
- wilcox-v-gingrich-2026-01-30
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and found the appellants' issues waived due to briefing violations; no sanctions were imposed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court found that the pro se litigants' brief relied on fabricated and mischaracterized case law, likely generated by AI without verification. Consequently, the court held that the appellants' issues were waived due to substantial noncompliance with appellate rules, though it declined to impose monetary or professional sanctions at this time.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Reed v. State, 810 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. 2004)' does not exist and the citation actually corresponds to an unrelated utility case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined 'Lacy v. State, 419 N.E.2d 489 (Ind. 1981)' does not exist at that citation and the reporter citation points to an Illinois case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court concluded 'Graves v. State, 773 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. 2002)' is nonexistent at that citation; reporter citation leads to an Illinois case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified 'Thompson v. Best' citations as internally inconsistent and not corresponding to any Indiana appellate decision cited; reporter citations direct to unrelated out-of-state cases. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found Harrison v. Thomas was cited for a cost-plus contract rule the decision does not contain; the case was mischaracterized. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Kapoor v. Dybwad was cited as authority for jury-review standards though the case addresses a 12(B)(6) dismissal and was mischaracterized. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court observed Weber v. Costin was cited for standards about setting aside a jury fraud verdict though Weber addresses summary judgment/wavier and was misapplied. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified J.S. Sweet Co. citation used to support a cost-breakdown principle though the actual case concerns mechanics' liens and prejudgment interest, a mischaracterization.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Indiana, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Appellate
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a trial court judgment following a jury trial in a contract, HICA, and fraud dispute.
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 the use of generative 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).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.