Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0X91XJDGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

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
ADVISOR READOUT

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.

Why the decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Immigration
  • Appellate
  • Struck Filing
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
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.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.