Background
Michael Mohr appealed a Lincoln County Circuit Court order continuing a restraining order under Oregon’s Family Abuse Prevention Act after a contested hearing. He argued that the trial court acted partially, shifted the burden of proof, entered a written order inconsistent with statements made at the hearing, failed to make written findings, and continued the order without sufficient proof of abuse or a threat to the petitioner’s safety.
Mohr’s opening brief cited three fabricated cases generated through his use of artificial intelligence. After the Court of Appeals ordered him to show cause why his brief should not be stricken and why he should not be sanctioned, Mohr admitted relying on AI, apologized, and accepted responsibility. The court considered the merits but disregarded the fabricated authorities and any support they purported to provide.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the continuation of the FAPA restraining order. Mohr’s judicial-bias and burden-shifting arguments were unpreserved, and the court declined plain-error review. The signed order controlled over any conflicting oral statements, and the trial court properly denied Mohr’s request for special findings because he made it only after the hearing had concluded.
The record contained legally sufficient evidence supporting the order. The petitioner testified that Mohr forcefully hugged her against her will and tried to pull her through her vehicle window within 180 days before she filed her petition. Deferring to the trial court’s implicit credibility determination, the appellate court concluded that the evidence supported findings of statutory abuse, a reasonable fear for physical safety, and a credible threat. It also clarified that continuing a FAPA order does not require proof of an imminent danger of further abuse.
The court separately directed Mohr to pay $250 to the Appellate Court Services Division. It reduced the contemplated sanction in light of his acknowledgment of the errors and limited financial resources but emphasized that fabricated authorities divert judicial resources and impede the administration of justice.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s use of AI does not excuse fabricated legal citations; courts may disregard the purported authorities and impose monetary sanctions.
- Continuing an Oregon FAPA order requires qualifying abuse, a reasonable fear for physical safety, and a credible threat—not an imminent danger of further abuse.
- Unpreserved appellate arguments ordinarily will not be reviewed, and a request for special findings under ORCP 62 A must be made before trial begins.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that self-represented litigants remain responsible for verifying AI-generated legal research. Even when a court reaches the merits, fabricated citations can produce sanctions because investigating them consumes resources that should be devoted to resolving genuine disputes.
The opinion also distinguishes the standards for initially obtaining and later continuing a FAPA order and confirms that supported implicit credibility findings can sustain continuation after a contested hearing.