PETITIONERS APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: CHRYSHAWNA A. WEBB THEODORE E. ROKITA JEREMY WEBB ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA FILED Farmersburg, IN MICHELLE R. WYATT Jul 16 2026, 5:01 pm
SHELBY M. STOUDER CLERK Indiana Supreme Court DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Court of Appeals and Tax Court Indianapolis, IN
IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
CHRYSHAWNA A. and JEREMY WEBB, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25T-TA-00029 ) SULLIVAN COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. )
ORDER ON PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE CERTIFIED RECORD
FOR PUBLICATION July 16, 2026
MCADAM, J.
The Webbs ask this Court to supplement the certified administrative record in this
appeal with the transcript of a court hearing—evidence not presented before the Indiana
Board of Tax Review. The transcript in question is from a small claims hearing held in
Sullivan County Superior Court on March 4, 2024, Cause No. 77D01-2312-SC-000532.
The Webbs want to introduce the transcript because they contend that it contains
“material evidence directly relevant to the issues before this Court,” namely testimony from various people about the tax sale that led to this appeal.1 Because the Webbs fail
to demonstrate that the transcript meets the statutory requirements for this Court to
consider evidence outside the record, this request must be denied.
Generally, “[w]hen a litigant fails to present evidence to the Board, the Court may
not consider that evidence on appeal,” unless exceptions referenced in Indiana Code
Section 33-26-6-5 apply. Prop. Dev. Co. Four, LLC v. Grant Cnty. Assessor, 42 N.E.3d
182, 184 & n.1 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015). Section 5 provides three criteria which must be met
for the Court to consider such evidence. First, the evidence must “relate[] to the validity
of the [Board’s final] determination at the time it was taken.” IND. CODE § 33-26-6-5(b)
(2026). Second, it must be “needed to decide disputed issues regarding one [] or both of
the following: (1) Improper constitution as a decision making body or grounds for
disqualification of those taking the agency action[;] (2) Unlawfulness of procedure or
decision making process.” Id. Third, it “could not, by due diligence, have been
discovered and raised in the administrative proceeding giving rise to a proceeding for
judicial review.” Id.
The requirements of Section 5 focus on two factors to determine if the new
evidence may be considered: what the evidence is intended to show and when the
evidence first became available. The small claims hearing transcript fails to qualify for
the exception under either of these factors. Because the Webbs do not show that the
transcript meets every requirement, the Court cannot consider it.
1 In support of their request, the Webbs cite Indiana Trial Rule 53.2 and Indiana Tax Court Rule 14, but neither rule is relevant here. Trial Rule 53.2 allows for a cause that has been tried to be transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court for appointment of a special judge if the court does not rule within 90 days after taking it under advisement. Ind. Trial Rule 53.2. Tax Court Rule 14 governs how and where certain Tax Court records are filed and kept. Ind. Tax Court Rule 14. Neither addresses when this Court may consider evidence outside of the administrative record. First, the Webbs do not show that this evidence meets the content requirement.
That is, they do not show that it “relates to the validity of the determination at the time it
was taken,” nor that it “is needed to decide disputed issues regarding” either the Board’s
constitution or the lawfulness of the procedures it used. IND. CODE § 33-26-6-5(b).
Indeed, by their characterization, the evidence is relevant to the “Petitioners’ claim that
the underlying tax sale and assessment proceedings violated due process and that the
seizure of personal property was state action under color of law.” (Pet’rs Mot. to Suppl.
R. at 2.) In other words, the transcript may be relevant to the Webbs’ substantive claims
before the Board and the correctness of the decision, but not to the validity of the
Board’s determination, its constitution, or the lawfulness of the procedure it used.
Second, the Webbs do not show that the transcript meets the timing requirement,
namely that it “could not, by due diligence, have been discovered and raised” during
proceedings before the Board. IND. CODE § 33-26-6-5(b). By their characterization, this
evidence was absent “because the small claims hearing occurred before the [Board]
hearing and involved different parties.” (Pet’rs Mot. to Suppl. R. at 1.) But neither of
those reasons would make it unavailable. The Webbs were party to both matters—the
Board appeal and the small claims matter. Nothing about the timing or sequencing of
the proceedings appears to have precluded the Webbs from offering the transcript as
evidence before the Board.
NOTE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
The Webbs refer to various court rules in their motion to support their request to
supplement the record. While the rules the Webbs cite do exist, they plainly do not
stand for any of the propositions that the Webbs advance. This leads the Court to believe that the Webbs used generative AI in producing their Motion to Supplement the
Record.
The Court recognizes the benefits of generative AI, especially for self-
represented parties like the Webbs, and does not wish to dissuade its responsible use.
But that does not relieve attorneys and self-represented litigants of their duty to
independently verify the authenticity and accuracy of authoritative sources cited to the
Court. Courts “must be able to rely on the authenticity of the authorities cited by the
parties to make just decisions.” Williams v. Kirch, 268 N.E.3d 284, 288 (Ind. Ct. App.
2025).
Generative AI tools are not reliable for legal citation and “frequently generate
fictitious case names and citations.” Wilcox v. Gingrinch, 274 N.E.3d 1269, 1277 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2026). Even when such tools do cite authentic cases, they frequently
mischaracterize their meaning or essential holdings. See, e.g., Sanders v. United
States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163, 170 (Fed. Cl. 2025) (“AI programs can generate fake case
citations and other legal misstatements.”). See generally Isabel Gottlieb & Isaiah Poritz,
Popular AI Chatbots Found to Give Error-Ridden Legal Answers, BLOOMBERG L., (Jan.
12, 2024), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/legal-errors-by-top-ai-models-
alarmingly-prevalent-study-says (discussing research from Stanford University that
found, out of 200,000 questions, “[l]arge language models hallucinate at least 75% of
the time when answering questions about a court’s core ruling”). While this technology
will undoubtedly be refined and improved in the course of time, litigants must continue
to exercise care to ensure that the information gleaned from such sources is reliable
and accurate. Accordingly, the Court admonishes the Webbs for failing to confirm the accuracy
of their legal presentations but will impose no further penalties. Going forward, the
Webbs should be mindful of their duty to verify the accuracy and authenticity of future
filings. At a minimum, the Webbs should review reliably sourced copies of the rules and
legal authorities used in any document filed with the Court to confirm that they support
the proposition advanced.2
CONCLUSION
The transcript in question does not meet either the content or the timing
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PETITIONERS APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: CHRYSHAWNA A. WEBB THEODORE E. ROKITA JEREMY WEBB ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA FILED Farmersburg, IN MICHELLE R. WYATT Jul 16 2026, 5:01 pm
SHELBY M. STOUDER CLERK Indiana Supreme Court DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Court of Appeals and Tax Court Indianapolis, IN
IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
CHRYSHAWNA A. and JEREMY WEBB, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25T-TA-00029 ) SULLIVAN COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. )
ORDER ON PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE CERTIFIED RECORD
FOR PUBLICATION July 16, 2026
MCADAM, J.
The Webbs ask this Court to supplement the certified administrative record in this
appeal with the transcript of a court hearing—evidence not presented before the Indiana
Board of Tax Review. The transcript in question is from a small claims hearing held in
Sullivan County Superior Court on March 4, 2024, Cause No. 77D01-2312-SC-000532.
The Webbs want to introduce the transcript because they contend that it contains
“material evidence directly relevant to the issues before this Court,” namely testimony from various people about the tax sale that led to this appeal.1 Because the Webbs fail
to demonstrate that the transcript meets the statutory requirements for this Court to
consider evidence outside the record, this request must be denied.
Generally, “[w]hen a litigant fails to present evidence to the Board, the Court may
not consider that evidence on appeal,” unless exceptions referenced in Indiana Code
Section 33-26-6-5 apply. Prop. Dev. Co. Four, LLC v. Grant Cnty. Assessor, 42 N.E.3d
182, 184 & n.1 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015). Section 5 provides three criteria which must be met
for the Court to consider such evidence. First, the evidence must “relate[] to the validity
of the [Board’s final] determination at the time it was taken.” IND. CODE § 33-26-6-5(b)
(2026). Second, it must be “needed to decide disputed issues regarding one [] or both of
the following: (1) Improper constitution as a decision making body or grounds for
disqualification of those taking the agency action[;] (2) Unlawfulness of procedure or
decision making process.” Id. Third, it “could not, by due diligence, have been
discovered and raised in the administrative proceeding giving rise to a proceeding for
judicial review.” Id.
The requirements of Section 5 focus on two factors to determine if the new
evidence may be considered: what the evidence is intended to show and when the
evidence first became available. The small claims hearing transcript fails to qualify for
the exception under either of these factors. Because the Webbs do not show that the
transcript meets every requirement, the Court cannot consider it.
1 In support of their request, the Webbs cite Indiana Trial Rule 53.2 and Indiana Tax Court Rule 14, but neither rule is relevant here. Trial Rule 53.2 allows for a cause that has been tried to be transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court for appointment of a special judge if the court does not rule within 90 days after taking it under advisement. Ind. Trial Rule 53.2. Tax Court Rule 14 governs how and where certain Tax Court records are filed and kept. Ind. Tax Court Rule 14. Neither addresses when this Court may consider evidence outside of the administrative record. First, the Webbs do not show that this evidence meets the content requirement.
That is, they do not show that it “relates to the validity of the determination at the time it
was taken,” nor that it “is needed to decide disputed issues regarding” either the Board’s
constitution or the lawfulness of the procedures it used. IND. CODE § 33-26-6-5(b).
Indeed, by their characterization, the evidence is relevant to the “Petitioners’ claim that
the underlying tax sale and assessment proceedings violated due process and that the
seizure of personal property was state action under color of law.” (Pet’rs Mot. to Suppl.
R. at 2.) In other words, the transcript may be relevant to the Webbs’ substantive claims
before the Board and the correctness of the decision, but not to the validity of the
Board’s determination, its constitution, or the lawfulness of the procedure it used.
Second, the Webbs do not show that the transcript meets the timing requirement,
namely that it “could not, by due diligence, have been discovered and raised” during
proceedings before the Board. IND. CODE § 33-26-6-5(b). By their characterization, this
evidence was absent “because the small claims hearing occurred before the [Board]
hearing and involved different parties.” (Pet’rs Mot. to Suppl. R. at 1.) But neither of
those reasons would make it unavailable. The Webbs were party to both matters—the
Board appeal and the small claims matter. Nothing about the timing or sequencing of
the proceedings appears to have precluded the Webbs from offering the transcript as
evidence before the Board.
NOTE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
The Webbs refer to various court rules in their motion to support their request to
supplement the record. While the rules the Webbs cite do exist, they plainly do not
stand for any of the propositions that the Webbs advance. This leads the Court to believe that the Webbs used generative AI in producing their Motion to Supplement the
Record.
The Court recognizes the benefits of generative AI, especially for self-
represented parties like the Webbs, and does not wish to dissuade its responsible use.
But that does not relieve attorneys and self-represented litigants of their duty to
independently verify the authenticity and accuracy of authoritative sources cited to the
Court. Courts “must be able to rely on the authenticity of the authorities cited by the
parties to make just decisions.” Williams v. Kirch, 268 N.E.3d 284, 288 (Ind. Ct. App.
2025).
Generative AI tools are not reliable for legal citation and “frequently generate
fictitious case names and citations.” Wilcox v. Gingrinch, 274 N.E.3d 1269, 1277 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2026). Even when such tools do cite authentic cases, they frequently
mischaracterize their meaning or essential holdings. See, e.g., Sanders v. United
States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163, 170 (Fed. Cl. 2025) (“AI programs can generate fake case
citations and other legal misstatements.”). See generally Isabel Gottlieb & Isaiah Poritz,
Popular AI Chatbots Found to Give Error-Ridden Legal Answers, BLOOMBERG L., (Jan.
12, 2024), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/legal-errors-by-top-ai-models-
alarmingly-prevalent-study-says (discussing research from Stanford University that
found, out of 200,000 questions, “[l]arge language models hallucinate at least 75% of
the time when answering questions about a court’s core ruling”). While this technology
will undoubtedly be refined and improved in the course of time, litigants must continue
to exercise care to ensure that the information gleaned from such sources is reliable
and accurate. Accordingly, the Court admonishes the Webbs for failing to confirm the accuracy
of their legal presentations but will impose no further penalties. Going forward, the
Webbs should be mindful of their duty to verify the accuracy and authenticity of future
filings. At a minimum, the Webbs should review reliably sourced copies of the rules and
legal authorities used in any document filed with the Court to confirm that they support
the proposition advanced.2
CONCLUSION
The transcript in question does not meet either the content or the timing
requirements prescribed by Indiana Code Section 33-26-6-5. For these reasons, the
Webbs have not demonstrated that this Court may consider the evidence in question.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petitioners’ Motion and cautions them against
relying on artificial intelligence without reviewing reliable source materials.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of July 2026.
__________________________ Justin L. McAdam Judge, Indiana Tax Court
Distribution: Chryshawna Webb, Jeremy Webb, Michelle Wyatt, Shelby Stouder
2 The Indiana Supreme Court publishes the official Court Rules online, available at https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/index.htm. The legislature publishes the official Indiana Code online, available at https://iga.in.gov/laws/2026/ic/. And there are many publicly available databases that compile cases that may prove useful, such as Legal Information Institute, Justia, Google Scholar, FindLaw, and Court Listener.