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
- Wable v. Ciresi CA5
- In re K.T. CA5
- People v. Harper CA5
- Pearce v. Briggs
- Slosar v. Pristine Surgery Center CA5
- People v. Blackwood CA5
- Alexis M. v. Superior Court CA5
- Alexis M. v. Superior Court CA5
- Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. County of Inyo
- In re Aiden N. CA5
- People v. Perez
- People v. Anguiano CA5
- People v. Soto CA5
- People v. Ruiz CA5
- In re G.M. CA5
- Avina v. Valley Pallet, VP CA5
- Edgar R. v. Superior Court CA5
- People v. Bishop CA5
- Moreno v. Bassi
- People v. Dominguez CA5
- People v. Escalante CA5
- People v. Konovalov CA5
- People v. Longoria CA5
- Montpelier Nut Co. v. Ditzler CA5
- People v. Chung CA5