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 authored (every role)
- Brooks v. Los Angeles County Bureau of Adoptions
- Long Beach Day Nursery v. Security First National Bank
- Bixby v. Bastady
- Gabel v. Page
- Gabel v. Page
- Star Mill and Lumber Co. v. Porter
- Pogue v. Ball
- Freyberg v. Los Angeles Brewing Co.
- Graham v. Light
- Winchester v. Becker
- Collins Hotel Co. v. Collins
- Perrine v. San Jacinto Valley Water Co.
- Allen v. Bryant
- Redpath v. Evening Express Co.
- Gregg v. Carey
- Biescar v. Pratt
- Freeman v. Brown
- Crocker v. Garland
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. Bovard
- Oatman v. Eddy
- Sefton v. Roach
- Murray v. Llewellyn Iron Works Co.
- Graham v. Redland Heights Water Co.
- In Re Baxter
- Newton v. United Electric, Gas & Power Co.