William v. Gallo
, District Court, S.D. California 2009–
On the assumption that the model is right — qwen3.8-27b's verdicts on a court's own orders matched a later appeal 76% of the time (104 of 136), 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.
Outcomes on appeal
The Ninth Circuit's later rulings on their dockets
affirmed 4 vacated 1 reversed in part 1
Each Ninth Circuit opinion that names a docket this judge wrote an order on, by its outcome; the ruling it reviewed is not always the order in the record. The order's page links the opinion.
Areas
By year: 2021 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 authored (every role)
- Daigle v. City of Oceanside
- Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP v. Jory
- Abrogina v. Kentech Consulting, Inc.
- Daigle v. City of Oceanside
- (HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher
- Jones v. Carraby
- Good v. Kijakazi
- Liebowitz v. Kijakazi
- (HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher
- Valles v. Allison
- Ireland v. Solaris Enterprise, LLC
- Hammler v. Aviles
- Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Company
- Jones v. Carraby
- Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Company
- Hammler v. Aviles
- Valdez v. Zhang
- Valles v. Allison
- Valdez v. Zhang
- Geilenfeldt v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Lopez v. Smiths Detection, Inc.
- Carpio v. Saul
- (HC)Royal v. Warden
- Gawel v. Radius Health, Inc.
- Godfrey v. Saul