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. Ibarra-Pineda CA5
- People v. Espinoza CA5
- People v. Franco-Alvarez CA5
- In re Z.S. CA5
- In re Timothy P. CA5
- People v. Padilla CA5
- Stabb v. County of Kern CA5
- S.B. v. Heather B. CA5
- People v. Olvera CA5
- People v. Lopez CA5
- People v. Perez CA5
- South Coast v. Ag-Weld CA5
- People v. Nagata CA5
- People v. Lowe CA5
- People v. Laws CA5
- Spjut v. County of Kern CA5
- Marriage of Koelewyn CA5
- Trent v. Fresno County Employees' Retirement Assn. CA5
- Stanley v. The Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University CA5
- Dhillon v. Anheuser-Busch CA5
- Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc.
- Macc Consulting v. City of California City CA5
- In re N.R. CA5
- People v. Lewis
- In re R.C. CA5