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
- Khalil v. State of California Dept. of State Hospitals CA5
- Adventure Church v. City of Fresno CA5
- People v. Rocha CA5
- People v. Corona CA5
- People v. Perez CA5
- Ford v. Deitz CA5
- People v. Singh
- In re S.T. CA5
- City of Kerman v. Andres CA5
- Gallegos v. Partners Personnel-Management Services CA5
- People v. Long CA5
- People v. Olguin CA5
- People v. Lopez-Ortuno CA5
- City of Kerman v. Andres CA5
- Marquez v. Marquez CA5
- People v. Avalos CA5
- People v. Cantu CA5
- People v. Dorius CA5
- Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Dinuba
- People v. Garcia-Santos CA5
- People v. Indalecio CA5
- In re Alexander C. CA5
- People v. Ware CA5
- People v. Lopez CA5
- Skouti v. Buttonwillow Warehouse Company CA5