Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr.
B+
75% — 12 of 16 rulings upheld, per qwen3.8-27b; in the top 25% of 312 graded judges
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.
32cases reviewed on appeal
24%reversed, in whole or part, of 29 merits decisions
Outcomes on appeal
affirmed 22 reversed 4 reversed in part 3 writ granted 2 remanded 1
Areas
By year: 2023 7 · 2024 6 · 2026 5 · 2021 4 · 2025 3 · 2022 3 · 2013 2 · 2020 1 · 2019 1 ·
Analysis
15reviewed cases analysed
56rulings read
0rulings where the model disagrees with the court
4cases with a verified missed authority
0appellate opinions called questionable
Counts of a model's readings across this judge's reviewed cases, each shown on its case page beside the court's disposition. Not a finding about the judge.
Cases reviewed on appeal (every role)
- Zhao v. Sun CA4/1
- Zhao v. Sun CA4/1
- Eagle Colton 55, LP v. City of Colton
- Stemcheer Biotechnology v. Gu CA4/1
- Manriquez-Gonzales v. Impact Logistics CA4/1
- Zorikova v. Lamey CA4/2
- Schlotthauer v. County of San Bernardino CA4/1
- Rios de Vitela v. Silverscreen Healthcare CA4/2
- Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp.
- Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp. CA4/2
- Shalabi v. Perniciaro CA4/2
- Rodriguez v. Stantru Resources CA4/2
- Zhu v. Meng CA4/1
- Trujillo v. Scrap Solutions CA4/3
- Tarin v. KND Development 55 CA4/2
- Saenz v. Superior Court CA4/2
- Victor Valley Union High School Dist. v. Super. Ct.
- Boydston v. Weber
- Boydston v. Padilla
- Boydston v. Padilla
- Boydston v. Padilla CA4/1
- Victor Valley Union High School Dist. v. Super. Ct.
- Ramos v. Smile Brands CA4/2
- Roe v. Hesperia Unified School Dist.
- Ring v. Harmon