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
- Lynn v. AAA Life Insurance Company CA5
- People v. Ruiz CA5
- People v. Bradberry CA5
- In re A.P. CA5
- People v. Hopkins CA5
- Arax v. Thomas CA5
- River Park Plaza v. Fresno Irrigation District CA5
- People v. Daniel CA5
- People v. Hillman CA5
- In re C.M. CA5
- In re L.B.
- People v. McElvane CA5
- Hart v. Hart CA5
- People v. Vargas CA5
- People v. Gonzales CA5
- People v. Nichols CA5
- People v. Valle CA5
- People v. Gonsalves CA5
- People v. Pearson CA5
- Estate of Orozco CA5
- People v. Martinez CA5
- People v. Winkle CA5
- Hansen v. Southside Neighborhood Stabilization 2021-5 CA5
- People v. Amos CA5
- People v. Russell CA5