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)
- Musselman v. Musselman
- Roberts v. Wilson
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. Hart
- Ballerino v. Superior Court
- Davidson v. Baldwin
- Coyne v. Baker
- National Bank of California v. Los Angeles Iron & Steel Co.
- Gurwell v. Morris
- Billings v. Palmer
- Chapin v. Ross
- Wohlford v. City of Escondido
- McLean v. Llewellyn Iron Works
- Wiestner v. California Coke & Gas Co.
- Willson v. Gregory
- Cox v. Southern Pacific Co.
- Langley v. Finnall
- Fitzhugh v. Mason
- McCarthy Co. v. Boothe
- Bank of Paso Robles v. Blackburn
- King v. Elton
- Turner v. Fidelity Loan Concern
- Reed v. Schon
- Downing v. Donegan
- Bradley v. Bush
- Riley v. Loma Vista Ranch Co.