AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesHolmes Family Trust v. Multnomah County Assessor
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Holmes Family Trust v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Dec 16, 2025

OR / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Oregon Tax Court admonished a pro se litigant for citing a nonexistent case likely generated by AI. The court declined to impose sanctions at this time but warned that future submissions of fabricated authority would result in reconsideration of sanctions.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Dept. of Rev. v. Sec'y of State, 16 OTR 350, 359 (2003)'; court found the case does not exist and likely resulted from generative AI; court declined to sanction but admonished Plaintiff.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Oregon Tax Court, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a property tax appeal, the Oregon Tax Court addressed a pro se litigant's citation of a nonexistent case, 'Dept. of Rev. v. Sec'y of State, 16 OTR 350 (2003).' The court determined the citation was likely the product of generative AI. While the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the underlying tax appeal on procedural grounds, it declined to impose sanctions for the fabricated citation. Instead, the court issued a formal admonishment, directing the plaintiff to verify all future legal authorities using official resources such as the State of Oregon Law Library or the court's own website. The court explicitly warned that it would reconsider sanctions if the plaintiff submitted further nonexistent law in future filings.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Oregon Tax Court, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtOregon Tax Court
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 16, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative AI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning issued to pro se litigant; motion to dismiss granted in part.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court attributed the nonexistent citation to the use of generative AI.

Procedural posture

Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in part.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Dept. of Rev. v. Sec'y of State, 16 OTR 350, 359 (2003)'; court found the case does not exist and likely resulted from generative AI; court declined to sanction but admonished Plaintiff.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Holmes Family Trust v. Multnomah County Assessor?
The Oregon Tax Court admonished a pro se litigant for citing a nonexistent case likely generated by AI. The court declined to impose sanctions at this time but warned that future submissions of fabricated authority would result in reconsideration of sanctions.
Why does Holmes Family Trust v. Multnomah County Assessor matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Oregon Tax Court, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Holmes Family Trust v. Multnomah County Assessor?
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 Holmes Family Trust v. Multnomah County Assessor 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.

Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas CountyLUBA (Oregon) · Mar 19, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsOwen v. Askew et al.D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsMichael J. Cross v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al.D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsSteven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade AlaoD. Oregon · Apr 10, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsYves Hector Vimegnon v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsStafford v. Andrew Taffet, et al.D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations