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
- Sanchez v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds CA5
- People v. Edwards CA5
- P.v. Torres CA5
- Marriage of Hiramanek CA5
- People v. Gonzalez CA5
- People v. Jones CA5
- People v. Hachee CA5
- People v. Marroquin CA5
- People v. Silva CA5
- People v. Ventura CA5
- People v. Mendoza CA5
- JHS Family Limited Partnership v. County of Fresno CA5
- People v. Perez CA5
- People v. Moton CA5
- LVNV Funding v. Rodriguez
- Rodriguez v. KS Industries CA5
- Vose v. Cadena CA5
- People v. Olvera CA5
- People v. Perez CA5
- People v. Mundi CA5
- People v. Nagata CA5
- Carson Hybrid Energy Storage v. Turlock Irrigation District CA5
- People v. Echartea CA5
- Via Appia v. OP Development CA5
- People v. Oliver CA5