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
- Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation
- Williams v. Kijakazi
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Sarmiento v. Pfeiffer
- Moody v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Mahboob v. Educational Credit Management Corporation
- Persian Gulf Inc. v. BP West Coast Products LLC
- Bartlett v. BP West Coast Products LLC
- Romero v. United States Federal Government
- Munoz v. Saul
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.57.4.41
- Murschel v. Paramo
- Ahrari v. Kijakazi
- Staker v. C R Bard Inc
- Misner v. C R Bard Inc
- Chromy v. C R Bard Inc
- Hunter v. Saul
- Brooks v. Berryhill
- Goodlett v. Delgado
- Loera v. Saul
- Mitchell v. Silva
- Mitchell v. Silva
- Reynolds v. San Diego, County of
- Pereira v. Saul
- Denman v. Saul