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
- Donnelly v. Rees
- Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angles Traction Co.
- Estate of Thomas
- Santa Rosa Bank v. White
- Miller v. Thompson
- Mersfelder v. Spring
- Thurgood v. Spring
- Crocker v. Dougherty
- Jacks v. Estee
- Porco v. State Board of Barber Examiners
- Aden v. City of Vallejo
- People v. Seeley
- Senior v. Anderson
- Hartwig v. Clark
- Citizens' Bank of Paso Robles v. Rucker
- Jones v. Kruse
- City of Santa Rosa v. Fountain Water Co.
- Parrish v. Rosebud Mining & Milling Co.
- Wall v. Marshutz Cantrell
- Pendola v. Ramm
- Brown v. La Société Française De Bienfaisance Mutuelle
- Estate of McKenna
- Pollard v. Harlow
- City Street Improvement Co. v. Taylor
- Rauer's Law & Collection Co. v. Gilleran