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
- In re Nathan S. CA5
- Marriage of Winter CA5
- People v. Pantoja CA5
- People v. McMillan CA5
- People v. Carr CA5
- Tyler v. CSG Holdings CA CA5
- North American Title Co. v. Super. Ct.
- People v. Newsom CA5
- Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachios etc.
- Holt v. Gardner CA5
- People v. Salazar CA5
- People v. Valle CA5
- Duran v. EmployBridge Holding Co.
- People v. McGrady CA5
- North American Title Company v. Super. Ct.
- People v. Ulloa CA5
- Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto
- People v. Brewer CA5
- People v. Ulloa CA5
- People v. Villasenor CA5
- Stack v. City of Lemoore
- People v. Harris CA5
- People v. Orozco CA5
- Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.
- Sutton v. Saputo Cheese USA CA5