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. Juan Rodriguez-Sifuentes
- Floyd Morrow v. City of San Diego
- AMCO Insurance v. All Solutions Insurance Agency, LLC
- People v. Hogan CA5
- People v. Henderson CA5
- United States v. Luis Molina
- Cruz v. Sun World International, LLC
- Goddard v. Department of Fish & Wildlife
- San Pablo Bay Pipeline Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
- People v. Abelar CA5
- People v. Orduno CA5
- Palacio v. Jan & Gail's Care Homes, Inc.
- James McBride v. S. Lopez
- People v. Trujillo CA5
- Desert Protective Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior
- Pechin v. County of Kern CA5
- In re N.L. CA5
- People v. Hayes CA5
- People v. Bell
- Najera v. Shiomoto
- People v. Hunwardsen CA5
- United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency
- Conservatorship of the Estate of Brown v. Kevin A.
- Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.
- In re A.F. CA5