Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez
CA Maryland · Apr 29, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA Maryland
- Record ID
- amparo-trejo-v-miguel-angel-amaya-hernandez-2026-04-29
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the lower court's judgment and struck the portions of the appellant's brief relying on nonexistent case law.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Immigration
- Appellate
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- No tool named in source
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County denial of a Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.