Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 26, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Home/courts/D. Maryland
Edward A. Garmatz Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Baltimore
Image: Baltimore Heritage · CC0
Source-linked corpus view

D. Maryland

D. Maryland appears in 19 of 2,215 public corpus records (0.9%). This page describes the recorded dataset, not an incidence rate, prevalence of AI use, or a prediction of future outcomes.

Matched records19
Corpus denominator2,215
Source linked100%
Latest trackedSep 29, 2026
Evidence-based answer

What kinds of legal AI issues and responses appear in D. Maryland?

AI Vortex currently links 19 source-linked public matters associated with D. Maryland. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (16), Misrepresented authority (9) and Fabricated or altered quotations (7). Recorded responses and outcomes include Warning or admonishment (10), No adjudicated consequence recorded (7) and Dismissal or adverse disposition (1). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the court.

Every count below links to the exact matching records. The linked source, subsequent docket history, and local procedural context remain controlling.

Leading issue signalFabricated authorities16 records
Leading recorded responseWarning or admonishment10 records
Known USD amountsNone recorded0 known · 0 unquantified
Recorded date rangeSep 19, 2025through Sep 29, 2026
Observed issue mix

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within a single matter.

Recorded consequences

How did courts or authorities respond?

Response categories can overlap and do not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.

Participant context

Who appears in these matters?

Matter context

Which practice areas are represented?

Attribution status

How is AI involvement recorded?

Unspecified attribution is not evidence that a particular vendor was used.

Corpus evolution

When were these matters recorded?

Public records in this view

Showing the most recent 19 of 19 matching records.

Curran v. Mom's Organic Market, Inc. et al.D. Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
Sep 29, 2026
Darrin L. Johnson, Jr. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al.D. Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
Aug 26, 2026
Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.D. Maryland · MD · Unidentified
Jul 28, 2026
Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (2)D. Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
Jul 17, 2026
Paige Warthen v. Barclays Bank Delaware (Warthen I, II, III)D. Maryland · MD · Unidentified
Jul 13, 2026
Devin A. Robinson v. Velosio, LLCD. Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
May 4, 2026
Yasmani Gurri Rubio v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.D. Maryland · MD · Unidentified
May 1, 2026
Darrin L. Johnson, Jr. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al.D. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Apr 30, 2026
Jane Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School CommissionersD. Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
Apr 29, 2026
Ali Behroz Aziz, et al. v. United States of America, et al.D. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Apr 27, 2026
Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1)D. Maryland · MD · Unidentified
Jan 28, 2026
Future Field Solutions v. NordstrandD. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jan 23, 2026
Future Field Solutions, LLC v. Van NorstrandD. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jan 23, 2026
Tafah et al. v. Lake Village Townhomes et al.D. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Jan 16, 2026
PRM Group, Inc. v. Paralegal Bootcamp LLCD. Maryland · MD · Unidentified
Dec 16, 2025
Taylor v. Prince George’s County, MarylandD. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Dec 16, 2025
Johnson / Estate of Fisher v. City of AnnapolisD. Maryland · MD · No tool named in source
Dec 13, 2025
Neal v. FrayerD. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Nov 17, 2025
United States v. MalikD. Maryland · MD · AI (implied, unspecified)
Sep 19, 2025
Open all matching records

Scope and limitation

This page groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish a judge’s general practices or sanction rate. For every entity type, the view is not a comparison against unobserved proceedings.

Indexing and evidence status

This public entity profile is indexable and meets the evidence-depth baseline of at least 3 source-linked records.