Indiana appeals court warns against unchecked AI research after fictitious citation

The Indiana Court of Appeals on October 29 admonished a self-represented appellant for citing a fictitious case and warned both lawyers and self-represented litigants to verify citations generated by AI. The warning appears in a footnote to the court’s memorandum decision in Nabors v. Nabors, which affirmed a custody modification and an attorney-fee award. The panel did not identify an AI product or make a specific finding about how the nonexistent citation was created. Scotty G. Nabors v. Jill A. Nabors

The court said the appellant’s brief cited Betclean v. Anstavel for the standard of review governing custody modification, but that the case did not exist. According to the footnote, the appellee identified the nonexistent citation and the appellant supplied no explanation in his reply brief. The panel connected the issue to the broader problem of fictitious, AI-generated authorities and emphasized that judges must be able to trust the authenticity of authorities supplied by parties. Scotty G. Nabors v. Jill A. Nabors

The opinion’s discussion of the citation should not be confused with its treatment of attorney fees. The panel affirmed a $4,000 contribution toward the other parent’s fees because the evidence supported the trial court’s finding of an income disparity. It did not describe that award as a penalty for the fictitious citation. The appeal’s custody and fee issues were resolved on their own stated grounds. Scotty G. Nabors v. Jill A. Nabors

Analysis. The practical point for teams using AI in legal work is that plausible-looking citation text does not establish that an authority exists or supports a proposition. The footnote’s warning supports independent citation checking before submission. It does not justify attributing this particular error to a named model, treating every citation error as evidence of AI use, or describing the separate fee award as an AI sanction. Scotty G. Nabors v. Jill A. Nabors

The decision expressly states that it is not binding precedent and identifies the limited purposes for which it may be cited under Indiana Appellate Rule 65(D). It also warns that the trial court and parties must not rely on it until certification under Rule 65(E). An October 30 CourtListener docket-number search returned this decision, while the scoped docket-entry query returned no entries. That limited index does not establish certification, rehearing, transfer or finality. Scotty G. Nabors v. Jill A. Nabors

Scotty G. Nabors v. Jill A. Nabors. Indiana Court of Appeals. 26A-DC-00699. Filed 2026-10-29. Published.

AI-assisted reporting based on court records retrieved through CourtListener. This analysis is produced by eDiscovery Decoder; it is not reviewed or endorsed by Free Law Project.