Hon. Kevin R. Murphy See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Alameda County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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      
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. Kevin R. Murphy


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA19563
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Murphy ordered me to argue 7 pending motions, including one against my former wife's attorney for changing orders, always in his client's favor, without submitting them to me for approval as to form and content. Instead, Murphy said that he wasn't prepared to hear the issues, after I'd spent three full days making sure that I was ready. Some of the motions weren't heard for another 3 years, and then they were barely given any attention by the commissioner who has been retired since then, Elizabeth Hendrickson. Murphy then set only one motion, the OSC re; Contempt against attorney Pulido for the next month, didn't tell me that it would be heard by Hendrickson. Hendrickson, a real piece of dishonesty herself, heard the OSC against Pulido, and ruled that he had not done anything wrong. This was on the day before Pulido became a judge in her division, Family Law, and became her superior with influence over whether or not her contract would be renewed. The conflict of interest is so obvious that it should have kept her from hearing the OSC at all. I had no idea that he was to be sworn in the next day, or I would have objected.