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. Zamora CA5
- People v. Hachee CA5
- JHS Family Limited Partnership v. County of Fresno CA5
- Kern County Hospital Authority v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
- Kern County Hospital Authority v. PERB CA5
- People v. Bradberry CA5
- People v. Amos CA5
- Kerman Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
- People v. Ulloa CA5
- People v. Ulloa CA5
- People v. Villasenor CA5
- Ramsey v. City of Chowchilla CA5
- O'Quinn v. Chi Management CA5
- People v. Ibarra-Pineda CA5
- Reyes v. Beneficial State Bank
- Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court
- People v. Harper CA5
- People v. Ruiz CA5
- Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases
- People v. Baltezor CA5
- Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases
- Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases
- People v. Celli CA5
- People v. Navarette
- People v. Langston CA5