Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Wilcox on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Wilcox v. Gingrich

Court
CA Indiana
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2026-01-30
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
—
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

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.

Sanction teardown · CA Indiana, USA · 2026-01-30

Wilcox v. Gingrich

What happened

In CA Indiana, USA, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • 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.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Not specified in source record.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1446/Wilcox_v_Gingrinch_USA_January_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1446/Wilcox_v_Gingrinch_USA_January_2026.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template