Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Couvrette v. Wisnovsky
D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2026
OR / federalEditorial impact: career endingfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytort
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case in their briefs (one of fifteen such fabricated citations identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court stated the cited cases do not exist. Outcome: Briefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudice. Order to show cause is here. Final judgment on costs is here. Final Opinion and Order is here. (Defendants prevailed partly because brief full of hallucinated material had been struck.)
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Briefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudice; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Hallucinated briefs can lose the case — $109K in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice is the worst-case AI outcome.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case in their briefs (one of fifteen such fabricated citations identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court stated the cited cases do not exist. Outcome: Briefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudice. Order to show cause is here. Final judgment on costs is here. Final Opinion and Order is here. (Defendants prevailed partly because brief full of hallucinated material had been struck.)
Operational lesson
Hallucinated briefs can lose the case — $109K in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice is the worst-case AI outcome.
Record details
OregonSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Oregon
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 23, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBriefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudice
Known amount$110,204
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
Briefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudice
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 | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case in their briefs (one of fifteen such fabricated citations identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court stated the cited cases do not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs misrepresented a quotation from a real case in their briefs (one of seven such misquotes identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court flagged the quotations as misrepresented.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Couvrette v. Wisnovsky?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case in their briefs (one of fifteen such fabricated citations identified across ECF Nos. 142, 155, and 168); the Court stated the cited cases do not exist. Outcome: Briefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudice. Order to show cause is here. Final judgment on costs is here. Final Opinion and Order is here. (Defendants prevailed partly because brief full of hallucinated material had been struck.)
- Why does Couvrette v. Wisnovsky matter for legal AI risk?
- Hallucinated briefs can lose the case — $109K in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice is the worst-case AI outcome.
- What does the public record establish about Couvrette v. Wisnovsky?
- 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 Couvrette v. Wisnovsky 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.