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
- United States v. Carlos Oregon-Mendoza
- United States v. Fernando Tello
- United States v. Juan Cota-Chavez
- Catherine Bryan v. Select Portfolio Servicing
- Robert Mahoney v. City of Seattle
- United States v. Luis Ocampo-Estrada
- United States v. Rufino Peralta-Sanchez
- David Bell v. M. Glynn
- Julie Fontaine v. Bank of America, N.A.
- United States v. Jose Romero-Payan
- United States v. Victor Cervantes
- Chase Hayes v. Nassco
- In re Trever P.
- United States v. Santos Diaz-Martinez
- Marketquest Group, Inc. v. Bic Corp.
- Ernest Sunrhodes v. Quentin Byrne
- Ronald Flate v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
- United States v. Matthew Keys
- Rickey Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc.
- Catherine Low v. Patrick Donahoe
- People v. Fernandez
- C. R. v. Seattle Public Schools
- Tricia Melland v. Cornerstone Dental, Pc
- United States v. Leroy Charles
- S. B. v. County of San Diego