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)
- People v. Flores CA5
- People v. High CA5
- People v. Mendoza CA5
- Marriage of Winter CA5
- People v. McMillan CA5
- People v. Carr CA5
- North American Title Co. v. Super. Ct.
- People v. Newsom CA5
- Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachios etc.
- People v. Salazar CA5
- North American Title Company v. Super. Ct.
- Sutton v. Saputo Cheese USA CA5
- Barron v. Super. Ct.
- In re A.C. CA5
- People v. Radillo CA5
- Ramsey v. City of Chowchilla CA5
- Barron v. Super. Ct.
- Valley Water Management v. Superior Court CA5
- Hall v. Sohn CA5
- Atalla v. Rite Aid Corporation
- People v. Ibarra-Pineda CA5
- People v. Espinoza CA5
- People v. Franco-Alvarez CA5
- People v. Padilla CA5
- S.B. v. Heather B. CA5