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 authored (every role)
- Mark Briggs & Associates, Inc. v. Kinestar, Inc.
- Citizens Bank of Roseville v. Taggart
- Chirmside v. Board of Administration
- Headen v. Miller
- King v. Regents of University of California
- Paine v. State Board of Equalization
- San Joaquin County Department of Public Assistance v. Barbara O.
- In Re Jamie M.
- County of Alameda v. State Board of Equalization
- Brown v. Stewart
- Placer County Probation Department v. Patricia C.
- Wells v. Municipal Court
- Department of Forestry v. Terry
- Leek v. Washington Unified School District
- Johnson v. Department of Social Services
- California State Employees' Ass'n v. Cory
- Dr. Ing HCF Porsche AG v. Superior Court
- Newbery Electric Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board
- People v. Collins
- Chambers v. Superior Court
- Margulis v. Myers
- People v. Newble
- People v. Galliher
- Feldman v. Sacramento Board of Realtors, Inc.
- People v. Young