Jinsook Ohta
A++
provisional — 100% — 5 of 5 rulings upheld, per qwen3.8-27b; would rank in the top 1% of 312 graded judges, but ten rulings are needed for a standing letter — 5 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.
22cases reviewed on appeal
249opinions authored
249panels sat on (not as author)
22%reversed, in whole or part, of 18 merits decisions
Outcomes on appeal
affirmed 14 vacated 3 reversed 1
The Ninth Circuit's later rulings on their dockets
affirmed 6 vacated 3 reversed 2
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 7 · 2023 6 · 2024 5 · 2026 4 ·
Analysis
6 of this judge's reviewed cases have an analysis; counts are shown from 10.
Cases authored (every role)
- ACCO Brands USA LLC v. Performance Designed Products LLC
- Ballard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
- Mehboob Shah v. Desert Auto Group V LLC
- Emert v. San Diego Board of Supervisors
- Perryman v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Riggs v. Madden
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Choice Advisors, LLC
- Blanton v. Barnes
- American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Federal Insurance Company
- Khwaja v. Federal Insurance Company
- Gonzalez v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.
- American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Federal Insurance Company
- Bonilla v. Fourth Appellate District Court
- Iseli v. State of California
- Ramirez v. United States
- Marin v. Catano
- Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Rodriguez v. United States
- Kaminsky v. Cisa, Inc
- Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation v. Qualcomm Incorporated
- D'Artisan v. Connor
- Nguyen v. Williams
- Marin v. Carroll
- Alexander v. Kao