Hon. Samuel T. McAdam See Rating Details
Superior Court
Yolo County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.3 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
Confirm E-mail Address      

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)

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Samuel T. McAdam



Comment #: CA48922
The judge's decision in my case seemed to overlook critical facts. Despite evidence suggesting the defendant was wrongfully dismissed, the judge ruled that I must cover their attorney's fees. Moreover, the case was suspended for all matters unrelated to the dismissed defendant, pending an appeal that concerned only this defendant. When I highlighted the lack of a clear Operating Agreement to justify such fees, the judge did not even request a response from the opposing side. Instead, he hastily concluded that the case should not be reconsidered. When I further pressed on the Operating Agreement issue, I was abruptly removed from the courtroom session. While the judge may have displayed fairness in other cases, his impartiality appears questionable when it involves a female minority representing herself against a powerful billionaire group.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6480
Avoid this judge if you represent women in dissolution or child custody actions