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
- Nguyen v. Saul
- O'Neil v. Kijakazi
- Droz v. County of San Diego
- Droz v. County of San Diego
- Swycaffer v. Saul
- Custom Cabs, Inc. v. Jada Builders Inc.
- Shaughnessy v. LVNV Funding, LLC
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Renovate America, Inc. v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458
- Taffe v. Kijakazi
- Ramirez v. Saul
- Renovate America, Inc. v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458
- Renovate America, Inc. v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458
- Renovate America, Inc. v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458
- Austin v. Berryhill
- Sandoval v. Saul
- Jihan, Inc. v. Amco Insurance Company
- Brown v. Montgomery
- Courtney v. Saul
- Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
- Ocampo v. United States of America
- Guest v. Saul
- DeBose v. Madden
- Beach v. Saul
- Gomez v. Madden