Smith
F--
provisional — 80% — 4.0 of 5 opinions sound, per qwen3.8-27b; would rank in the top 100% of 80 graded judges, but ten opinions 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.
6cases reviewed on appeal
732opinions authored
1,565panels sat on (not as author)
—5 merits decisions: a rate is shown from 10
Outcomes on appeal
Areas
By year: 2014 1 · 2013 1 · 1998 1 · 1914 1 · 1910 1 · 1900 1 ·
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. Arey CA5
- Marriage of Riaz CA5
- Porter v. The Kenan Advantage Group CA5
- People v. Barrios CA5
- Lopez v. Narayanan Nair MD CA5
- People v. The North River Ins. Co.
- Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Ctr. of Modesto, Inc.
- Koskiniemi v. Jennings CA5
- Powell v. Belden CA5
- Porter v. The Kenan Advantage Group CA5
- People v. Reynoso CA5
- S.C. v. County of Fresno CA5
- People v. Sanchez CA5
- Patten v. Torosian CA5
- Trunick v. Callaway CA5
- People v. Epps CA5
- People v. Swan CA5
- People v. Gunnarsson CA5
- Diamond v. Schweitzer
- Aguilera v. Dole Packaged Foods CA5
- People v. Arey CA5
- People v. Epps CA5
- People v. Andrews CA5
- Sandton Agriculture Investments III, LLC v. 4-S Ranch Partners, LLC
- People v. Perez CA5