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
- Moreno v. Bassi
- People v. Hughes CA5
- Rodriguez v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. CA5
- Yu v. Squab Producers of Cal. CA5
- People v. Vang CA5
- Willis v. L.A. County Waterworks Dist. No. 40 CA5
- Renfro v. J.G. Boswell Co. CA5
- Stand Up for California! v. State of Cal.
- People v. Robles CA5
- Hall v. Davis CA5
- People v. Zyszkiewicz CA5
- Menefee Construction v. Calmat Co. CA5
- Menefee Construction v. Vulcan Materials Co. CA5
- People v. Vasquez
- Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases
- Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases
- People v. Baltezor CA5
- People v. Nieto
- People v. Nieto
- Odd Fellows Sierra Recreation Assn. v. Coleman CA5
- Foster v. Sexton
- Zuniga v. Cherry Avenue Auction
- Stone v. Byers CA5
- Bichai v. Dignity Health
- People v. Thomas CA5