HomeCasesAmparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez

CA Maryland · Apr 29, 2026

MD / stateEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsimmigrationappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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. Outcome: Brief Partly Struck.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Brief Partly Struck; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and immigration involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Brief Partly Struck in CA Maryland, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and immigration involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Brief Partly Struck in CA Maryland, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MarylandSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Maryland

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit4th Circuit

DateApr 29, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Partly Struck

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Brief Partly Struck

Correction behavior

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?: 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. Outcome: Brief Partly Struck.
Why does Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and immigration involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Brief Partly Struck in CA Maryland, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
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.

Khan v. Howard County BAPCA Maryland · Jul 20, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Olutosin Ajakaiye v. Omowunmi H. OladipupoCA Maryland · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Brandy Dorsey v. Walter Livramento, IIICA Maryland · May 20, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Fatima Meziane v. Abdelouahab AitoucheCA Maryland · Apr 23, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Boyd v. LeeCA Maryland · Jan 14, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Rotibi v. RealPage, Inc.CA Maryland · Sep 9, 2025same court · fake citations + appellate

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

MarylandSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtCA Maryland

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit4th Circuit

DateApr 29, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Partly Struck

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

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?

Why does Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez?

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.