Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Brankle v. Schmell
·Court of Appeals of Indiana·US-STATECosts orderprovisional
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirms the denial of David Brankle’s motion to compel and a $1,546 expenses award. The memorandum quotes the trial court’s finding that Brankle cited nonexistent rules and fictitious cases suggesting ChatGPT use, and holds hallucinated authorities cannot substantially justify the motion.
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Indiana
- Date
- 2026-08-14
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- ChatGPT or other form of artificial intelligence
- Conduct
- Self-represented litigant cited nonexistent Commercial Court Rules and fictitious cases in a motion to compel and related filings.
- Outcome
- Costs order
- Penalty
- US$1,546
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-07
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Tapscott v. Fariss, No. 25-1666 (Iowa Ct. App. 2026)2026-10-07 · Court of Appeals of Iowa · DismissalIn the Court of Appeals of Iowa, a self-represented appellant's final brief in a protective-order appeal contained multiple hallucinated case citations. After two earlier briefs were struck and the appellant failed to a…
- Washington v. Justice, No. 2D2025-2678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)2026-10-07 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · DismissalIn Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, self-represented appellants filed a brief citing eleven cases the court could not find and likely generated by AI. After an unavailing show-cause response and a pattern of f…
- Shannon v. Shannon, 322 Neb. 451 (2026), No. S-25-5462026-10-02 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Filing struckIn Nebraska, the state Supreme Court struck a self-represented divorce litigant's appellate brief for fictitious citations produced by his admitted AI use. Extending Prososki v. Regan to unrepresented parties, it held s…
- R. M. v. Mohr, 353 Or App 182 (2026), A1880922026-09-23 · Oregon Court of Appeals · FineIn Oregon, the Court of Appeals ordered a self-represented restraining-order appellant to pay $250 after his brief cited three fabricated cases he admitted came from AI. The court had threatened $1,500, at $500 per fake…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Brankle v. Schmell”, safelegalai.com/tracker/brankle-v-schmell (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.