Joan M. Lewis
A--
78% — 131 of 167 rulings upheld, per qwen3.8-27b; in the top 19% 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.
75cases reviewed on appeal
33%reversed, in whole or part, of 73 merits decisions
Outcomes on appeal
affirmed 49 reversed 16 reversed in part 8 writ granted 1 writ denied 1
Areas
By year: 2016 17 · 2014 16 · 2013 16 · 2015 12 · 2018 6 · 2017 3 · 2007 2 · 2021 1 · 2019 1 · 2008 1 ·
Analysis
141reviewed cases analysed
531rulings read
4rulings where the model disagrees with the court
22cases with a verified missed authority
2appellate 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
- Luckett v. Bank of America CA4/1
- Charlot v. Carefusion Resources CA4/1
- Kelly v. Orr
- Tetravue, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. CA4/1
- Herttua v. American Commercial Equities Three CA4/1
- Santos v. Wells Fargo Bank CA4/1
- Sarnecky v. Fidelity Nat. Title Co. CA4/1
- Bryant v. San Diego Electric Co. CA4/1
- Alkasabi v. Hendricks & Partners, Inc. CA4/1
- inewsource v. Super. Ct. Ca4/1
- Armenta v. First American Fund Control CA4/1
- Dawson v. Country Club of Rancho Bernardo CA4/1
- Payan v. Cartwright Termite & Pest Control CA4/1
- Varela v. Birdi CA4/1
- Montiel CA4/1
- Pacific Corporate Group Holdings v. Keck
- Angelica Textile Services v.Park CA4/1
- Chau v. Chau CA4/1
- Barrett v. Leech CA4/1
- Sarnecky v. Barratt Developments CA4/1
- Hall v. Rite Aid Corp.
- Humphrey v. Bank of America CA4/1
- Cafagna v. Superior Court CA4/1
- Hall v. Rite Aid Corp. CA4/1
- Schimsky v. Higgins CA