Boersma v. Davenport
Oregon Court of Appeals · Or. Ct. App. · Oregon bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant's opening brief cited fabricated cases and inapposite authority; in a separate appeal briefed at the same time, her citations had been flagged as misquoted or mischaracterized.
Consequence
Appeal dismissed as taken from a non-appealable document; $500 sanction under ORCP 17 payable to the Oregon Judicial Department.
Lesson
Here the court relied on the filer's prior notice from another appeal, and her failure to check this brief or alert the court, in imposing $500.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Boersma v. Davenport, 349 Or App 268 (2026), No. A186400 (Or. Ct. App. May 6, 2026) (Joyce, J.)
- Decided
- May 6, 2026
Summary
Self-represented plaintiff Heather Lynn Boersma appealed a document labeled a limited judgment that awarded defendants $735.00 under ORCP 39 H(1) for her failure to attend a deposition in a Marion County action against Cynthia Davenport and Dollar Tree Corporation Stores, Inc. Defendants did not appear on appeal. Reviewing her opening brief, the Court of Appeals "found several citations to completely fabricated cases and numerous instances in which plaintiff cites cases that are unrelated to the propositions for which she cites them," and issued an order to show cause on March 4, 2026. In her response, Boersma said she researched in good faith despite limited access to legal research tools and did not intend to submit fabricated authority. The court found that she recognized the possibility of "citation issues" but "did not explicitly recognize that her brief included fabricated authority or take responsibility for their inclusion." She also pointed to a separate appeal in which, according to her, opposing counsel had said citations in her opening brief were "either misquoted or mischaracterized," and in which she had moved to file an amended brief. The court noted she filed no such motion here, although the two appeals were briefed around the same time, and "apparently took no steps" to check this brief for the same issues.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion flags fabricated and inapposite case citations but does not attribute them to AI or name a tool)
- Sanction amount:
- $500, payable to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department
What sanction did the court impose?
The court dismissed the appeal because the document appealed from was not a valid limited judgment under ORS 18.005(13), so plaintiff must wait for an appealable judgment before challenging the deposition-cost award. Separately, it held that sanctions were warranted under ORCP 17 C and D(1), which apply on appeal through ORAP 1.40(4), and directed plaintiff to pay $500 to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department. The court relied on several grounds together: plaintiff "was on notice of the potential for her research and writing process to produce fabricated authority"; she knew of a mechanism for alerting the court, having moved to amend her brief in the other appeal, yet "did not investigate the authority she relied on in this case and did not inform this court of the possible citations issues to which she had been alerted"; and her "reliance on fabricated authority wasted the resources of this court." It followed Powell v. Employment Dept., 347 Or App 55 (2026), which imposed the same $500 amount on a pro se party in similar circumstances. The opinion did not strike the brief.
Why does Boersma v. Davenport matter for law firms using AI?
Boersma is a short opinion in which notice carries much of the weight. The Court of Appeals found that Boersma “was on notice of the potential for her research and writing process to produce fabricated authority,” was “aware of a potential mechanism for alerting this court to the fact that her brief might contain fabricated authority,” yet “did not investigate the authority she relied on in this case” and did not inform the court. Her own show-cause response supplied the notice: to prove good faith, she pointed to a separate appeal in which, by her account, opposing counsel had flagged her citations as “either misquoted or mischaracterized” and she had moved to file an amended brief. The court turned that evidence against her, observing that this case “was being briefed around the same time as the separate appeal” and that she “apparently took no steps” to check this brief. It added that her reliance on fabricated authority wasted the court’s resources.
The procedural vehicle is ORCP 17, which reaches appellate filings through ORAP 1.40(4). A signer certifies that the filing rests on “such inquiry as is reasonable under the circumstances,” and self-represented parties “must inform [themselves] of and comply with court rules as any other litigant.” The court followed its recent decision in Powell v. Employment Dept., 347 Or App 55 (2026), and imposed the same $500 amount, payable to the Appellate Court Services Division of the Oregon Judicial Department. The opinion did not describe the fabricated cases and did not mention artificial intelligence.
The appealability holding is independent of the sanction. The document Boersma appealed from, prepared by defense counsel and titled “Limited Judgment and Money Award,” “is not a valid limited judgment and thus not appealable” under ORS 18.005(13), so the court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, and she must wait for a judgment that satisfies the requirements for appealability. The court nonetheless decided the sanctions question, so the defect in the appeal did not shield the brief’s citations from review.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Document the correction step that follows any notice of a citation problem. The court treated a warning in a different appeal as notice for this brief, which was being briefed around the same time.
- Review how a citation defect discovered in one matter is checked for in other active matters drafted with the same research process.
- Consider that the Oregon Court of Appeals applies ORCP 17 to appellate filings through ORAP 1.40(4) and imposed the same $500 amount here that it imposed in Powell v. Employment Dept.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference (listed as 'Implied'). The opinion describes fabricated and inapposite citations and plaintiff's 'research and writing process' but never mentions artificial intelligence or a tool.