Carr
A-
provisional — 100% — 6.0 of 6 opinions sound, per qwen3.8-27b; would rank in the top 12% of 80 graded judges, but ten opinions are needed for a standing letter — 6 so far
On the assumption that the model is right — qwen3.8-27b reads the court's own disposition right 70% of the time, 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.
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
- People v. Engquist
- County of Los Angeles v. Department of Industrial Relations
- Guidotti v. County of Yolo
- People v. Bean
- People v. Vaughn
- County of Colusa v. Charter
- Worth v. Superior Court
- Casey v. Superior Court
- Donald v. Sacramento Valley Bank
- Appleton v. Superior Court
- Foremost Insurance v. Wilks
- Cabrera v. McMullen
- Abraugh v. Gillespie
- Thompson v. State Personnel Board
- Eddy v. Sharp
- Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta
- Woodland Production Credit Assn. v. Nicholas
- Barrett v. Lipscomb
- Gray v. Firthe
- International Service Insurance v. Gonzales
- Northrup v. Superior Court
- Johnston v. Department of Personnel Administration
- Zurich Insurance v. Peterson
- Cowan v. Myers
- Children's Protective Services v. Charles B.