AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesDoiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission
Evidence review: secondary source only. Only case-specific secondary coverage was accessible. It provides context, not independent proof of the underlying ruling.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission

CA Oregon · Mar 18, 2026

OR / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityappellateMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief contained at least 15 citations to cases that the court concluded are fabricated (nonexistent) and cannot be located; counsel could not produce sources. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Petitioner’s opening brief contained at least 15 fabricated case citations and at least nine purported quotations that do not exist in Oregon case law; counsel acknowledged reliance on unverified search-engine results and some use of AI for an outline. Court capped sanctions at $10,000, required a replacement brief limited to accurately described authorities, and required certification that no generative AI was used to draft the brief and that cited authorities were verified.

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
Require a no-AI certification plus cite-verification log on every appellate brief; 15 fake cites now carries a $10K cap sanction.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief contained at least 15 citations to cases that the court concluded are fabricated (nonexistent) and cannot be located; counsel could not produce sources. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Petitioner’s opening brief contained at least 15 fabricated case citations and at least nine purported quotations that do not exist in Oregon case law; counsel acknowledged reliance on unverified search-engine results and some use of AI for an outline. Court capped sanctions at $10,000, required a replacement brief limited to accurately described authorities, and required certification that no generative AI was used to draft the brief and that cited authorities were verified.

Operational lesson

Require a no-AI certification plus cite-verification log on every appellate brief; 15 fake cites now carries a $10K cap sanction.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Oregon
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 18, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
Known amount$10,000
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

Monetary Sanction

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief contained at least 15 citations to cases that the court concluded are fabricated (nonexistent) and cannot be located; counsel could not produce sources.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | At least nine purported quotations attributed to various cases (some to fabricated cases and some to real cases) that do not exist anywhere in Oregon case law.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Multiple instances where actual Oregon cases were cited but the brief inaccurately described the propositions or holdings for which those cases stand.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission?
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief contained at least 15 citations to cases that the court concluded are fabricated (nonexistent) and cannot be located; counsel could not produce sources. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Petitioner’s opening brief contained at least 15 fabricated case citations and at least nine purported quotations that do not exist in Oregon case law; counsel acknowledged reliance on unverified search-engine results and some use of AI for an outline. Court capped sanctions at $10,000, required a replacement brief limited to accurately described authorities, and required certification that no generative AI was used to draft the brief and that cited authorities were verified.
Why does Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission matter for legal AI risk?
Require a no-AI certification plus cite-verification log on every appellate brief; 15 fake cites now carries a $10K cap sanction.
What does the public record establish about Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission summary?
The recorded source is reason.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

Carol L. Williams v. Tracy HonlCA Oregon · Apr 22, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesKeith Powell v. Employment Dep. & First Congregational Church of PortlandCA Oregon · Feb 11, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesState v. DixonCA Oregon · Jul 15, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityBoersma v. DavenportCA Oregon · May 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityRingo v. Colquhoun Design Studio, LLCCA Oregon · Dec 3, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesKelly Bartholomew v. Public Utility Commission of OregonCA Oregon · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate