Hon. Kate Powell Segerstrom See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Tuolumne County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 3 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      
Zip
Occupation

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. Kate Powell Segerstrom


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA19523
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She refused to allow me to present my side of the eviction in a trial de novo (a completely new re-trial), refused to allow me to complete my testimony, interrupted and then ended my examination of the plaintiff, and refused to order witnesses related to the plaintiffs to testify despite properly served subpoenas, even though one witness, plaintiff's mother, was in the courtroom wearing an obvious wig. I learned later that she and her relatives have used the services of Waters Plumbing, the plaintiff who refused to pay me for work done on the rental property that I occupied. Her performance was that of a biased party, not a judge. She should be removed from the Bench.

Other

Comment #: CA15876
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I’m not sure whether this church even cares about the relationship between parents and children I’ve had the unfortunate experience for the past year or so in this church has managed to do absolutely nothing Whatsoever highly unrecommended. The only thing I can say good about who is that she’s not quite as shitty as Commissioner pimentel.

Litigant

Comment #: CA9771
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Refuses to comply with Art 1, Sect 12 of her own CA State Constitution. Hands out max fines 100% of the time, thereby also violating the CA State Constitution's prohibition against assessing fines (by definition). Receives over $178k per year in compensation, and is a total waste of taxpayer money.