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 sat on (every role)
- Marriage of Lemos CA5
- People v. Cerpa CA5
- Cruz v. City of Merced
- In re Hernandez CA5
- Westlands Water Dist. v. All Persons Interested
- Infinity Select Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct.
- Kerman Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
- People v. Ruiz CA5
- Mohammadi v. City of Fresno CA5
- Internat. Fruit Genetics v. Grapery CA5
- Infinity Select Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct.
- Westlands Water District v. All Persons Interested CA5
- In re N.W. CA5
- Wash v. Wash CA5
- Mohammadi v. City of Fresno CA5
- York v. Brambila CA5
- Shaw v. Crabtree CA5
- Steinhardt v. Krohe CA5
- People v. Lopez CA5
- People v. See CA5
- Santillan v. City of Selma CA5
- People v. Phillips CA5
- In re Nathan S. CA5
- People v. Pantoja CA5
- Tyler v. CSG Holdings CA CA5