HomeCasesGreen Building Initiative, Inc. v. Stephen R. Peacock & Green Globe Limited

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 95/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Stephen R. Peacock & Green Globe Limited

D. Oregon · Oct 27, 2025

OR / federal Editorial impact: low fake citations trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Mis-citation/misrepresentation of Page v. Parsons: GBI cited a federal reporter that does not correspond to that Oregon appellate decision and relied on it for a proposition the real Oregon decision does not support. Outcome: Show Cause Order. Lawyer later explained that he had "used Microsoft’s Copilot for its editing functions in an effort to review and improve the draft document by fixing grammar, spelling, and improving badly phrased sentences" - not for legal research.On November 12, 2025, the court resolved the Show Cause proceedings without formal sanctions.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Mis-citation/misrepresentation of Page v. Parsons: GBI cited a federal reporter that does not correspond to that Oregon appellate decision and relied on it for a proposition the real Oregon decision does not support. || Fabricated: Case Law | Entirely fabricated opinion and citation attributed to 'Stell v. Cardenas' (case and reporter do not exist; real Case No. 3:21-cv-413 is a different matter). Court found no such opinion at the cited Westlaw number or parties.
Why it matters now: Using Copilot for grammar edits still introduces hallucinated citations; ban AI touching any text containing case cites.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Using Copilot for grammar edits still introduces hallucinated citations; ban AI touching any text containing case cites.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

Explore OROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Oregon

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 27, 2025

AI toolCopilot

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeShow Cause Order

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

Copilot is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Show Cause Order

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 | Mis-citation/misrepresentation of Page v. Parsons: GBI cited a federal reporter that does not correspond to that Oregon appellate decision and relied on it for a proposition the real Oregon decision does not support.
Fabricated: Case Law | Entirely fabricated opinion and citation attributed to 'Stell v. Cardenas' (case and reporter do not exist; real Case No. 3:21-cv-413 is a different matter). Court found no such opinion at the cited Westlaw number or parties.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Stephen R. Peacock & Green Globe Limited?: Fabricated: Case Law | Mis-citation/misrepresentation of Page v. Parsons: GBI cited a federal reporter that does not correspond to that Oregon appellate decision and relied on it for a proposition the real Oregon decision does not support. Outcome: Show Cause Order. Lawyer later explained that he had "used Microsoft’s Copilot for its editing functions in an effort to review and improve the draft document by fixing grammar, spelling, and improving badly phrased sentences" - not for legal research.On November 12, 2025, the court resolved the Show Cause proceedings without formal sanctions.
Why does Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Stephen R. Peacock & Green Globe Limited matter for legal AI risk?: Using Copilot for grammar edits still introduces hallucinated citations; ban AI touching any text containing case cites.
What does the public record establish about Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Stephen R. Peacock & Green Globe Limited?: 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.
Which source supports this Green Building Initiative, Inc. v. Stephen R. Peacock & Green Globe Limited 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.

Owen v. Askew et al.D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Michael J. Cross v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al.D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2026same court · fake citations + trial REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesD. Oregon · May 19, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Steven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade AlaoD. Oregon · Apr 10, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Shaun Fleck v. Del-One Federal Credit UnionD. Oregon · Mar 30, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Yves Hector Vimegnon v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

Linked evidence record

reason.com

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statussecondary source only

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Oregon profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology