Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Trejo v. Amaya Hernandez
Appellate Court of Maryland · State appellate courts · MD · · 2026 WL 1162579 · No. No. 0741, September Term, 2025 · opinion
The Appellate Court of Maryland on 2026-04-29 struck the portions of the appellant’s brief that relied on three nonexistent nunc pro tunc cases in Amparo Trejo v. Miguel Angel Amaya Hernandez. Counsel filed a brief with three fabricated case citations.
- Disposition
- The circuit court judgment was affirmed and portions of appellant’s brief relying on nonexistent cases were struck.
- Recorded conduct
- Appellant’s brief cited seven cases, three of which did not exist. The court struck the portions of the brief pertaining to the argument supported by the nonexistent cases. — outcome: filing struck; actor: lawyer
- Canonical record
- Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
For example, the “Standard of Review” section does not contain a single citation. 4 We strike the portions of Appellant's brief as it pertains to this argument because the three cases cited as support do not exist. 5 While not binding on this Court, this case was acknowledged as persuasive support in the following cases: Doser v. Doser, 106 Md. App. 329, 346-47 (1995); Short, 136 Md. App. at 579; In re Timothy C. , 376 Md. at fn. 10. AMPARO TREJO v. MIGUEL ANGEL AMAYA... , Not Reported in Atl.... 6 As previously noted, this case does not exist.
Authorities cited in the passage: Doser v. Doser, 106 Md · AMPARO TREJO v. MIGUEL ANGEL AMAYA...
compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face