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
- Bassett v. Los Angeles Traction Co.
- Durkee v. Moulton
- Durkee v. Moulton
- Trabing v. California Navigation & Improvement Co.
- San Antonio Water Co. v. Bodenhamer
- People Ex Rel. Richardson v. Cobb
- People Ex Rel. Bank Commissioners v. Bank of Mendocino County
- Hansen v. Wagner
- Argues v. Union Sav. Bank of San Jose
- Herd v. Tuohy
- County of Amador v. Gilbert
- Frost v. Witter
- People Ex Rel. Hicks v. Stewart
- Schomberg v. Walker
- Smith v. Capital Gas Co.
- Block v. Kearney
- Hoffman v. Keeton
- Mills v. Boyle Mining Co.
- White v. Costigan
- Hellings v. Duvall
- Eaton v. Norris
- Van Loben Sels v. Bunnell
- Gilfether v. Smith
- Findlay v. Pott
- Findlay v. Pott