Wilcox v. Gingrinch
Court of Appeals of Indiana · Ind. Ct. App. · Indiana bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Wilcox v. Gingrinch, No. 25A-PL-1157 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2026) (May, J.)
- Decided
- January 30, 2026
Summary
Pro se appellants Steve and Melissa Wilcox appealed from a Morgan Superior Court judgment arising out of a construction dispute with Grateful Home Exteriors, LLC and its principal, Matthew Gingrich (named in the filed caption as 'Gingrinch'). The appellate brief's Table of Authorities listed 22 cases; the brief's body cited additional cases not in the Table. The Court of Appeals identified fourteen entirely fabricated Indiana cases (including 'Reed v. State, 810 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. 2004),' 'Lacy v. State, 419 N.E.2d 489 (Ind. 1981),' and 'Graves v. State, 773 N.E.2d 157 (Ind. 2002),' among others) where the reporter citations led instead to unrelated Illinois, Ohio, New York, or Massachusetts cases. Numerous real Indiana cases were cited for propositions they did not support.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (presumed; not acknowledged)
What sanction did the court impose?
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial-court judgment, finding all appellate issues waived under Indiana Appellate Rule 46 because the Wilcoxes' noncompliance was 'sufficiently substantial to impede' meaningful review. The court held that pro se litigants 'are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys' and that 'courts do not accommodate litigants, whether represented or not, who support their arguments with fabricated cases.' No sanctions were imposed, largely because there was no appellee to request them and no record of prior fabrications. The court cautioned all future Indiana litigants that similar submissions 'may result in sanctions,' including striking filings, restricting future submissions, monetary penalties, or dismissing the appeal.
Why does Wilcox v. Gingrinch matter for law firms using AI?
Wilcox v. Gingrinch is the Indiana Court of Appeals’ most detailed published engagement with AI hallucinations in a pro se brief. Judge May’s opinion reads as a structured audit of the brief’s citations (fourteen fabricated cases individually identified, plus a long list of mischaracterized real cases) and it lays out a clear standard for Indiana: pro se status is not a safe harbor. The opinion cross-cites Mid Central v. HoosierVac, Kruse v. Karlen, Shahid v. Esaam, and Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, situating Indiana as part of a growing national consensus that AI-generated fictitious citations are procedurally disqualifying regardless of who files them. The explicit enumeration of sanctions available for future violations (striking filings, filing restrictions, monetary penalties, dismissal) effectively gives Indiana attorneys and pro se litigants formal notice that the next comparable case will not be treated as a first-time issue.