HomeCasesBoersma v. Davenport

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Boersma v. Davenport

CA Oregon · May 6, 2026

OR / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytort

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified several completely fabricated case citations in the appellant's opening brief and found reliance on that fabricated authority had wasted judicial resources. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in CA Oregon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in CA Oregon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Oregon

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMay 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Sanction

Known amount$500

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Monetary Sanction

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified several completely fabricated case citations in the appellant's opening brief and found reliance on that fabricated authority had wasted judicial resources.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited multiple existing cases in ways unrelated to the propositions for which they were cited (mischaracterized or inapposite authority).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Boersma v. Davenport?: Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified several completely fabricated case citations in the appellant's opening brief and found reliance on that fabricated authority had wasted judicial resources. Outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why does Boersma v. Davenport matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Sanction in CA Oregon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Boersma v. Davenport?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Boersma v. Davenport summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

State v. DixonCA Oregon · Jul 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Carol L. Williams v. Tracy HonlCA Oregon · Apr 22, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Keith Powell v. Employment Dep. & First Congregational Church of PortlandCA Oregon · Feb 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kelly Bartholomew v. Public Utility Commission of OregonCA Oregon · Apr 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis CommissionCA Oregon · Mar 18, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLCCA Oregon · Dec 3, 2025same court · fake citations + appellate

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified several completely fabricated case citations in the appellant's opening brief and found reliance on that fabricated authority had wasted judicial resources.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited multiple existing cases in ways unrelated to the propositions for which they were cited (mischaracterized or inapposite authority).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Boersma v. Davenport?

Why does Boersma v. Davenport matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Boersma v. Davenport?

Which source supports this Boersma v. Davenport summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.