"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Mark E. Petersen	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Riverside County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 5.6 - 2 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 2.0 - 4 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

Confirm E-mail Address

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

What others have said about Hon. Mark E. Petersen

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA24007
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I prevailed in obtaning a judgment against the defendant. But Judge Mark E. Petersen (Riverside) 'turned ' on me when I began to enforce collection on the judgment and sided with the defendant (who had a judgment against her). As an out-of-state plaintiff, I traveled 3 times down to Riverside. I found Judge Petersen to be dismissive, and he did not make his decisions based on a matter of law in my case.

Litigant

Comment #: CA9476
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Failed to make a unbiased and informed decision completely ignoring the facts and failed to review subpoenaed documents from a government agency, the Automotive Repair Bureau of California. And in my research two other cases from the same auto shop that he presided on werected ruled in favor of the auto shop or dismissed entirely. Also, all cases from this auto shop were unprecedented.

Litigant

Comment #: CA6546
Rating:8.0

Comments:
I think overall Judge Petersen is fair In my case I think he unknowingly made a mistake vacating the eviction (UD) over underestimated rents on the 3 day notice. While a 3-day notice for a residential property must not overstate the amount of rent due,(see Ernst Enter., inc V. Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc (1983) 139 cal.app3d 355, 359), a three day notice understating the amount of rent due should not be fatal to the action (see Cavanaough V. High (1960) 182 cal.app2d 714, 722.) Therefore I disagree with the ruling.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA5530
Rating:1.2

Comments:
This Judge is extremely unfair. He couldn't decide my case the day of court. He mailed me the decision and court order. Totally way off. He denied my request for explination by saying "improper request for court order"...I filled out the rquest properly. He failed to explain my order because he was wrong!!!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2985
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Judge Petersen is a very even handed and fair in his decisions. He works well with both attorneys and pro pers. He runs his courtroom by the book but still makes sure everyone is given every opportunity to present their case. I would rate him as one of the best judges I have had the pleasure of appearing before in my 32 years of practice.

Litigant

Comment #: CA2979
Rating:1.0

Comments:
In Traffic court, hearing trial for infractions the court overseen by Peterson was without jurisdiction and ruled against defendant anyway. Reason was completely absent. It was He wanted to go lunch.