Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez
CA Maryland · Apr 29, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Appellate Court of Maryland struck portions of the appellant's brief because the appellant cited three nonexistent cases as authority for nunc pro tunc relief. The court determined these citations were invalid and excised the corresponding sections of the brief.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the cited cases did not exist and therefore could not support the appellant's arguments. It further determined that the requested nunc pro tunc order sought to supply an omitted action rather than correct a clerical error, which is outside the scope of such relief.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the judicial response to the inclusion of fabricated legal authorities in appellate filings. It highlights the court's authority to strike portions of a brief containing nonexistent citations and underscores the necessity of rigorous verification of all legal research.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal regarding a petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) predicate findings, the Appellate Court of Maryland identified that the appellant's brief contained seven citations, three of which were nonexistent. The court noted that the appellant also failed to provide citations for several legal assertions, including the standard of review. Consequently, the court struck the portions of the appellant's brief that relied on the fabricated case law. The court ultimately affirmed the circuit court's denial of the appellant's motion for an order nunc pro tunc, concluding that the requested relief was not a clerical error and that the minor failed to meet the substantive statutory requirements for SIJS status.
This case illustrates the judicial response to the inclusion of fabricated legal authorities in appellate filings. It highlights the court's authority to strike portions of a brief containing nonexistent citations and underscores the necessity of rigorous verification of all legal research.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County denial of a Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc.
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 | Appellant cited this case as authority for nunc pro tunc relief; the court determined the case does not exist and struck the portions relying on it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant relied on this case for the proposition that courts may issue nunc pro tunc orders; the court found the citation to be nonexistent and struck related briefing.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited this Maryland appellate decision as support; the court concluded the case does not exist and excised the portions of the brief based on it.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez?
- The Appellate Court of Maryland struck portions of the appellant's brief because the appellant cited three nonexistent cases as authority for nunc pro tunc relief. The court determined these citations were invalid and excised the corresponding sections of the brief.
- Why does Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the judicial response to the inclusion of fabricated legal authorities in appellate filings. It highlights the court's authority to strike portions of a brief containing nonexistent citations and underscores the necessity of rigorous verification of all legal research.
- What does the public record establish about Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez 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.