HomeCasesCarol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl

CA Oregon · Apr 22, 2026

OR / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytort

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'Tubra v. Cooke, 233 Or App 339, 225 P3d 862 (2010)' for an anti‑SLAPP proposition; court found the cited case does not exist. Outcome: Brief Struck; Adverse Costs Order.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Brief Struck; Adverse Costs Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Strike-and-costs orders hit $8K fast; require second-attorney sign-off on every cited case before filing.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Strike-and-costs orders hit $8K fast; require second-attorney sign-off on every cited case before filing.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtCA Oregon

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateApr 22, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Struck; Adverse Costs Order

Known amount$8,044

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Brief Struck; Adverse Costs Order

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'Tubra v. Cooke, 233 Or App 339, 225 P3d 862 (2010)' for an anti‑SLAPP proposition; court found the cited case does not exist.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief attributed de novo‑review language and standards to Neumann v. Liles; court found Neumann does not state the claimed proposition.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief quoted Staten v. Steel as supporting a broad rule that private employment disputes are not matters of public interest; court found Staten does not say that.
False Quotes: Case Law | Brief relied on Davoodian v. Rivera and similar citations for propositions or quotations the court identified as omitted or unsupported; listed among problematic citations.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief invoked Handy v. Lane for a proposition about government transparency and accountability that the court found Handy did not contain or emphasize as claimed.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl?: Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'Tubra v. Cooke, 233 Or App 339, 225 P3d 862 (2010)' for an anti‑SLAPP proposition; court found the cited case does not exist. Outcome: Brief Struck; Adverse Costs Order.
Why does Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl matter for legal AI risk?: Strike-and-costs orders hit $8K fast; require second-attorney sign-off on every cited case before filing.
What does the public record establish about Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl?: 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 Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl 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.

Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis CommissionCA Oregon · Mar 18, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Keith Powell v. Employment Dep. & First Congregational Church of PortlandCA Oregon · Feb 11, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Boersma v. DavenportCA Oregon · May 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority State v. DixonCA Oregon · Jul 15, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Ringo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLCCA Oregon · Dec 3, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Kelly Bartholomew v. Public Utility Commission of OregonCA Oregon · Apr 6, 2026same 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

Strike-and-costs orders hit $8K fast; require second-attorney sign-off on every cited case before filing.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cited 'Tubra v. Cooke, 233 Or App 339, 225 P3d 862 (2010)' for an anti‑SLAPP proposition; court found the cited case does not exist.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief attributed de novo‑review language and standards to Neumann v. Liles; court found Neumann does not state the claimed proposition.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief quoted Staten v. Steel as supporting a broad rule that private employment disputes are not matters of public interest; court found Staten does not say that.

False Quotes: Case Law | Brief relied on Davoodian v. Rivera and similar citations for propositions or quotations the court identified as omitted or unsupported; listed among problematic citations.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief invoked Handy v. Lane for a proposition about government transparency and accountability that the court found Handy did not contain or emphasize as claimed.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl?

Why does Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl matter for legal AI risk?

Strike-and-costs orders hit $8K fast; require second-attorney sign-off on every cited case before filing.

What does the public record establish about Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl?

Which source supports this Carol L. Williams v. Tracy Honl 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.