Incident Tracker / United States (state)
Holstein v. Holstein
·Court of Appeals of Indiana·US-STATEWarningprovisional
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirms a custody order in Holstein v. Holstein and denies Mother’s request for $5,000 in sanctions. The court says Father’s counsel included citations from his client without verification, corrected them promptly, and receives a warning rather than a monetary sanction.
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Indiana
- Date
- 2026-06-16
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- artificial intelligence
- Conduct
- Father’s counsel included two nonexistent cases and a fictitious quote provided by his client in an initial brief, then promptly disclosed and corrected the problem.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- 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
- Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group, No. 2428 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct.)2026-08-27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · WarningIn Pennsylvania, counsel for Paige and Ty Kiser cited a non-existent Superior Court decision, Com. v. Reid, for an appellate issue in a consumer dispute. The Superior Court called the authority counterfeit, suggested ch…
- Benjamin v. State, No. 2189 Sept. Term 2024 (Md. App. Ct.)2026-08-25 · Appellate Court of Maryland · WarningIn Maryland, appellate counsel filed a criminal brief with multiple inaccurate citations. The Appellate Court compared the problem to Mezu, said fake AI-generated cases are improper, accepted counsel's corrective effort…
- Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C. Ct. App.)2026-09-03 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Regulatory referralIn the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deutsche Bank's appellee brief cited four nonexistent authorities after counsel used Google's generative AI search tool without verification. The court struck the brief, ref…
- State v. Presti, No. CAAP-24-0000826 (Haw. Ct. App.)2026-08-31 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · WarningOn a Hawaii criminal appeal, self-represented appellant Cody Presti filed an opening brief citing 95 cases, 11 of which the court could not locate; six citations pointed to unrelated decisions. The Intermediate Court of…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Holstein v. Holstein”, safelegalai.com/tracker/holstein-v-holstein (accessed 2026-09-08). Data: CC BY 4.0.