Which AI tool was involved in Chryshawna A Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor?

The order in Chryshawna A Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor does not identify a specific generative tool by name. The court treated the citations as the product of an unverified AI-assisted drafting workflow.

July 16, 2026 · AI sanctions database

Chryshawna A Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor

Chryshawna A Webb v. Sullivan County Assessor is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.

Court: Indiana Tax Court
Date: July 16, 2026
Party: Pro Se Litigant
AI tool: Not identified in the order
Outcome: Admonishment; no further penalties imposed
Penalty: No monetary penalty in this order.

Warning

What the record shows

The Indiana Tax Court admonished self-represented petitioners whose motion to supplement the record cited court rules that exist but, in the court's words, plainly do not stand for any of the propositions advanced. In a section headed as a note on the use of artificial intelligence, the court stated this led it to believe the petitioners used generative AI to produce the motion. The court recognized the benefits of such tools for self-represented parties, restated the duty to independently verify the authenticity and accuracy of cited authority, and imposed no further penalties beyond the admonishment.

This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.

Source documents

Primary court document ↗ · CourtListener record ↗

The test this filing did not run

Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.

Run a free review Back to the full tracker →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · Indiana Tax Court

About this publication

Veritas is a pre-filing citation verification platform for law firms and in-house counsel. Every post on the audit log is written by the Veritas editorial team and cross-checked against the underlying sanctions order, standing order, or published opinion it references. Reporter citations are read in their named volumes. Quotations from court orders are checked against the docket.

The product was built by Andrew Zoll, founder of Veritas, who tracks generative AI sanctions in federal and state courts and turns each documented failure mode into verification logic the scanner runs. Veritas was built after the canonical Mata v. Avianca sanctions order made the verification gap a published failure mode of the bar.

AI sanctions database · Sample report · Pricing · Run a scan