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
- Bee Sweet Citrus v. Style-Line Construction CA5
- People v. Mejia CA5
- People v. Aguilera CA5
- Whitlach v. Premier Valley CA5
- People v. Gordon CA5
- People v. Williams CA5
- In re E.C.
- People v. Watkins CA5
- People v. Limon CA5
- In re K.H.
- People v. Limon CA5
- Richert v. Colvin CA5
- Richert. v. Colvin CA5
- People v. Chacon CA5
- In re Lacey T. CA5
- People v. Herns CA5
- Randhawa v. Hanford Community Hospital CA5
- Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC
- In re S.D. CA5
- People v. Rosner CA5
- Isenberg v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles CA5
- People v. Lopez
- People v. McDow CA5
- People v. Baggett CA5
- People v. Loya CA5