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)
- Johnson v. Little Rock Ranch
- People v. Jeronimo CA5
- People v. Baca CA5
- People v. Sanchez CA5
- Merced County v. Kong-Brown CA5
- People v. Standridge CA5
- In re Gavin R. CA5
- Chaves v. Modesto Livestock Com. Co. CA5
- Wable v. Ciresi CA5
- In re K.T. CA5
- Pearce v. Briggs
- Slosar v. Pristine Surgery Center CA5
- In re G.M. CA5
- Edgar R. v. Superior Court CA5
- People v. Dominguez CA5
- People v. Escalante CA5
- People v. Hughes CA5
- Yu v. Squab Producers of Cal. CA5
- Stand Up for California! v. State of Cal.
- People v. Zyszkiewicz CA5
- Menefee Construction v. Calmat Co. CA5
- Menefee Construction v. Vulcan Materials Co. CA5
- People v. Baltezor CA5
- Stone v. Byers CA5
- People v. Gyulnazaryan CA5