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. Barrios CA5
- Lopez v. Narayanan Nair MD CA5
- People v. The North River Ins. Co.
- Koskiniemi v. Jennings CA5
- People v. Reynoso CA5
- People v. Taylor
- Carson Hybrid Energy Storage v. Turlock Irrigation District CA5
- People v. Chatman
- Marriage of Hiramanek CA5
- LVNV Funding v. Rodriguez
- People v. Olvera CA5
- People v. Perez CA5
- People v. Nagata CA5
- Carson Hybrid Energy Storage v. Turlock Irrigation District CA5
- People v. Pardue CA5
- People v. Blake CA5
- People v. Rangel CA5
- People v. Hughes CA5
- People v. Blake CA5
- Khalil v. State of California Dept. of State Hospitals CA5
- People v. Corona CA5
- In re S.T. CA5
- City of Kerman v. Andres CA5
- People v. Long CA5
- City of Kerman v. Andres CA5