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 sat on (every role)
- People v. Thomas CA5
- Esajian v. Holland CA5
- People v. Sanders CA5
- Westlands Water Dist. v. Cal. Water Impact Network CA5
- Westlands Water Dist. v. County of San Joaquin CA5
- Westlands Water Dist. v. North Coast Rivers Alliance CA5
- People v. Vargas CA5
- People v. Richmond CA5
- Eagle Farms v. Calcot CA5
- Marriage of Martinez and Martinez-Chavez CA5
- People v. Anderson CA5
- In re A.O. CA5
- Rodriguez v. Board of Retirement of Fresno etc. CA5
- Stafford v. Avenal Community Health Center CA5
- Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases
- People v. Renteria CA5
- People v. Simon CA5
- Banda v. Wash CA5
- People v. Ridge CA5
- Boykin v. Premier Universal, Inc. CA5
- People v. Marquez CA5
- People v. West CA5
- Cardamon v. Dominion Courtyard Villas CA5
- People v. Mireles CA5
- People v. Garcia CA5