Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0LJ9V7JGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al.

D. Oregon · Feb 18, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
D. Oregon
Record ID
david-martin-v-ods-community-dental-insurance-et-al-2026-02-18
Observed outcome
Motion for temporary restraining order denied; formal warning issued to pro se litigant regarding citation accuracy.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued a formal warning regarding the submission of inaccurate or incomplete legal citations, specifically noting the potential use of generative AI in the plaintiff's filings.

Why the decision-maker cared

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quote to Zschernig v. Miller (citing 389 U.S. 429, 432) that the court found does not appear on the cited page or anywhere in the case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cites Hartman v. Moore, Estelle v. Gamble, and Washington v. Glucksberg in rhymed verse and without full or supporting citations; the court found these citations inaccurate or incomplete.

Why it matters now

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Tort
  • Trial
  • None Adjudicated
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Order denying plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The court referenced the plaintiff's potential use of generative AI.

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.