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.
Doiban v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission
CA Oregon · Mar 18, 2026
OR / stateEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityappellate
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
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.