Andrew G. Schopler
, District Court, S.D. California 2016–
On the assumption that the model is right — qwen3.8-27b's verdicts on a court's own orders matched a later appeal 76% of the time (104 of 136), graded on a curve: A is the top fifth of the judges graded under this model, F the bottom fifth; ++ / + / − / −− within the band. How the grade is made.
Outcomes on appeal
affirmed 12 vacated 1 dismissed 1
The Ninth Circuit's later rulings on their dockets
affirmed 10 remanded 1 dismissed 1
Each Ninth Circuit opinion that names a docket this judge wrote an order on, by its outcome; the ruling it reviewed is not always the order in the record. The order's page links the opinion.
Areas
By year: 2025 12 · 2026 2 ·
Analysis
No analyses yet. When they exist, this shows counts of the model's findings across this judge's reviewed cases — with the court's own dispositions beside them, and only from 10 cases.
Cases
- Smith v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC
- Alicia De Santiago v. Berryhill
- Gitre v. Koenig
- Jones v. Social Security Admin
- Kakadelas v. Kijakazi
- Goodlow v. Camacho
- Vuz v. DCSS III, Inc.
- Carter v. United States of America
- Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Briceno v. Williams
- Blanco v. Johnson
- Baker v. Saul
- Rudolph v. Saul
- Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Yeargan v. Kijakazi
- Herlickman v. Saul
- Follstad v. Berryhill
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Mahboob v. Educational Credit Management Corporation
- Mahboob v. Educational Credit Management Corporation
- Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Nam v. Tex Net Inc
- Awmagan v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation
- Trujillo v. Ametek, Inc.