Gilbert G. Ochoa
Judge, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino 2007–
B++
78% — 14 of 18 rulings upheld, per qwen3.8-27b; in the top 21% of 312 graded judges
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.
43cases reviewed on appeal
34%reversed, in whole or part, of 35 merits decisions
Outcomes on appeal
affirmed 22 reversed 9 writ granted 3 reversed in part 3 writ denied 2 dismissed 2 other 1 modified 1
Areas
By year: 2015 8 · 2016 7 · 2025 5 · 2014 5 · 2021 4 · 2013 4 · 2023 3 · 2024 2 · 2018 2 · 2026 1 · 2019 1 · 2010 1 ·
Analysis
16reviewed cases analysed
54rulings read
2rulings where the model disagrees with the court
4cases with a verified missed authority
1appellate opinions called questionable
Counts of a model's readings across this judge's reviewed cases, each shown on its case page beside the court's disposition. Not a finding about the judge.
Cases
- Munguia v. County of San Bernardino CA4/1
- JBS Carriers v. Mendoza CA4/1
- Vertical Web Ventures v. Arrowhead Lake Assn. CA4/3
- Sayegh v. Citizens Business Bank CA4/1
- Carter v. County of San Bernardino CA4/2
- Barber v. CA State Personnel Bd.
- The Inland Oversight Committee v. City of San Bernardino
- Turnbull v. Lucerne Valley Unified School Dist.
- Kagan v. Victor Valley Community College Dist. CA4/2
- Eichenberger v. Ontario Dialysis Center CA4/2
- Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland
- WooriChemtech Co. v. EPC Technologies CA4/2
- Carr v. Rees CA4/2
- Patton v. City of Montclair CA4/1
- Padilla v. Moore CA4/2
- Save Our Uniquely Rural v. County of San Bernardino
- Silliman v. Silliman CA4/3
- King v. Steward CA4/2
- Kaabinejadian v. Miller CA4/2
- Southern California Noble Development v. PRP Investors Fontana CA4/3
- Lounsbury v. Bank of America CA4/2
- Villacorta v. Cemex Cement, Inc.